Latest 4 Cases: Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc. (Civil Rights), Johnson v. Precythe (Criminal Law), United States v. Winnick (Criminal Law)

The Oldest Republican Pander in the Book: “Do It for Our Children and Grandchildren”

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan reacts to a comment by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick that older people should be “willing to take a chance on [their] survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for [their] children and grandchildren.” Buchanan points out that Patrick’s suggestion has been rightly mocked but that it is not usual for Republicans to claim, hypocritically, that older people should make sacrifices for younger generations.

Read More

Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc.

Docket: 19-1026

Opinion Date: April 1, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Within two months after plaintiff filed suit against Holiday seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Holiday remedied the violations. Three months later, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Holiday, holding that the post-suit alterations mooted plaintiff's accessibility claims. Furthermore, because there was no fair notice of the flared-sides issue, the disputed measurements are not a genuine issue of material fact. The court also held that the district court correctly ruled that nominal damages are not available under Title III of the ADA, and that requesting them does not affect mootness.

Johnson v. Precythe

Docket: 17-2222

Opinion Date: April 1, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the State's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court held that to prove a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must prove two elements: first, that the State's method of execution presents a risk that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness or needless suffering, and give rise to sufficiently imminent dangers and, second, a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the state has refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason. Plaintiff filed suit against state officials, challenging the constitutionality of Missouri's method of execution as it applied to him. In this case, plaintiff failed to meet the second element where his claim fell squarely within the alternative holding of Bucklew that the Eighth Amendment does not require a State to adopt an untried and untested method of execution.

United States v. Winnick

Docket: 18-3734

Opinion Date: April 1, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's 336 month sentence for producing child pornography. The court held that the district court failed to give defendant a full credit for the time served on related state charges. The court remanded for the district court to clarify its reasoning as to how exactly it applied USSG 5G1.3 to arrive at defendant's final sentence. Defendant's remaining challenges to his sentence lacked merit; there was no error in imposing a sentencing enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual exploitation under USSG 4B1.5(b); the district court considered defendant's mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a); and addressing the reasonableness of defendant's sentence would be premature in light of the remand.

Garcia v. Barr

Docket: 18-3201

Opinion Date: April 1, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's appeal from the IJ's decision denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the agency's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific, cogent, reasons for disbelief. In this case, petitioner failed to address the myriad of inconsistencies and contradictory statements on the record, such as the number of times she was abused, where she was abused, and whether she could successfully leave her partner. Such information was material in determining whether she is a member of a particular social group, suffered from past persecution, or has a reasonable fear of future persecution.