8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 5, 2026

Administrative

Trademark Infringement

Lanham Act; Cancellation

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment that canceled its trademark. Plaintiff sued defendant for trademark infringement, arguing that defendant had infringed on plaintiff’s trademark of chartreuse-colored water hoses. However, the district court granted defendant’s request to cancel the mark, ruling that it was invalid because the color chartreuse on water hoses was a functional feature and had not acquired distinctiveness.

Where plaintiff’s advertising cited the functional advantage of the color of its hoses, the district court did not err in concluding that the chartreuse color on plaintiff’s hoses was a functional element and thus could not form the basis of a trademark.

Judgment is affirmed.

Weems Industries, Inc. v. Teknor Apex Company (MLW No. 85197/Case No. 24-3608 & 25-2956 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Arnold, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

E-Cigarettes

FDA Authorization; Federal Preemption

Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Iowa passed a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems that did not have FDA authorization. Plaintiff, a coalition of manufacturers, retailers, and consumers filed suit arguing that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law. The district court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction, finding that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption argument.

Where Congress had not clearly intended to preempt state tobacco regulation and the Iowa law did not frustrate federal regulation of tobacco products, the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.

Loken, J., concurring: “But I do not agree that “HF 2677 is not preempted,” supra at 9, and I do not agree with the conclusion in Part III.B.iv. that California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949), is controlling on the question whether HF 2677 is preempted by what is known as “obstacle preemption,” supra at 14-17. In my view, to resolve that issue requires a far more extensive record, including evidence of how Iowa intends to enforce this open-ended statute, and how that will affect FDA’s exclusive federal statutory authority to enforce the TCA, see 21 U.S.C. § 337(a).”

Judgment is vacated.

Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc. v. Mosiman (MLW No. 85205/Case No. 25-2087 – 18 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Civil Practice

Pro Se Complaint

Dismissal; Motion for Default

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint.

Where the record supported the district court’s decision, the court affirmed and denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, entry of default, and default judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

Walsh v. Del Toro (MLW No. 85231/Case No. 25-2625 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Theeler, J.

Civil Rights

Prison Inmate

Free Exercise Violation; RLUIPA

Plaintiff, an Iowa prison inmate and a practitioner of Hasidic Judaism, appealed the dismissal of his action under RLUIPA and §1983 alleging that the Iowa DOC was preventing him from exercising his religion while incarcerated. The district court concluded that plaintiff’s claims either failed to state a viable claim to relief or that plaintiff was barred from pursuing claims on threshold grounds.

Where Iowa had consented to suit under RLUIPA, the district court erred in applying sovereign immunity, and plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue as to whether the DOC’s grievance procedures were a dead-end for his claims or that he was thwarted from pursuing administrative appeals of his grievances, but some of plaintiff’s claims were filed outside the limitations period under applicable continuing violation theories.

Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

Hamby v. State of Iowa (MLW No. 85222/Case No. 24-3548 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

Constitutional Law

Obscenity Laws

Public Library Materials; Overbreadth and Void-for-Vagueness Challenges

Defendants appealed the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction and award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs. Arkansas adopted an obscenity law that prohibited furnishing a “harmful item” to a minor and required public libraries to adopt policies for the selection and retention of materials and procedures to respond to citizens’ challenges of materials as inappropriate. Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law, raising overbreadth and void-for-vagueness arguments.

Where there was no current challenge to library materials and the district court failed to consider the law’s full set of applications to determine which were constitutional and which were not, the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge part of the law and had not adequately argued their overbreadth and vagueness arguments.

Colloton, J., concurring: “In my view, the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge § 5 of Act 372, and § 1 of the Act is not unconstitutionally vague. I concur in those conclusions substantially for the reasons given by the court.”

Judgment is reversed.

Fayetteville Public Library v. Crawford County (MLW No. 85198/Case No. 25-1146, 25-2211, & 25-2427 – 24 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Contracts

Asset Purchase Agreement

Breach of Contract; Evidentiary Rulings

Plaintiffs appealed the partial summary judgment and award of attorney’s fees to defendants, challenging the district court’s conduct during trial and its evidentiary rulings. Plaintiffs purchased two car dealerships from defendants, but the parties’ relationship subsequently soured around allegations of breaches of non-compete agreements, tortious interference, and failure to make earnout payments, leading to plaintiffs’ consolidated lawsuit against defendants.

Where defendants’ alleged breaches of the parties’ agreement failed to rise to the level of a total failure of consideration, plaintiffs were not excused from making earnout payments and the district court did not err in granting judgment to defendants on that issue, and the district court’s comments during the trial and its jury instructions did not prejudice the outcome.

Judgment is affirmed.

FA ND Chev, LLC v. Kupper (MLW No. 85229/Case No. 25-1741 – 17 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Traynor, J.

Criminal Law

Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Minor

Judgment of Acquittal; Evidence of Penetrative Act

The government appealed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on his charge of aggravated sexual assault of a minor. The district court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant engaged in an act of penetration of the victim’s genital opening.

Where the victim’s testimony was sufficient for a rational jury to find that defendant had penetrated the victim’s vaginal orifice when bathing her, the court overturned the judgment of acquittal.

Kelly, J., dissenting: “M.D. never said Dominquez put his fingers inside her or in her vagina. Rather, she said Dominquez “focused on her vagina” and “used his fingers” to clean her; she never discussed penetration. Indeed, the only person who said Dominquez put his fingers “in [M.D.’s] vagina” was the prosecutor.”

Judgment is reversed.

U.S. v. Dominquez (MLW No. 85200/Case No. 25-1571 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Theeler, J.

Child Sex Offenses

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed following his guilty plea to child sex offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and arguing that the district court should have held a competency hearing.

Where the plea hearing provided sufficient evidence for the district court to assess defendant’s competency, there was no need for a separate hearing, and his substantive reasonableness challenge was barred by his appeal waiver.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Christlieb-Peterson (MLW No. 85224/Case No. 25-3157 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tostrud, J.

Drug and Firearm Offenses

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable, the court was constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Reynolds (MLW No. 85211/Case No. 25-3426 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Drug and Firearm Offenses

Sufficiency of Evidence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for various drug and firearms offenses, challenging the constitutionality of the unlawful possession of firearm statute, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his drug distribution conviction and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where defendant’s constitutional argument was foreclosed by precedent and he was found in possession of drugs and firearms, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction, and the district court committed no abuse of discretion in sentencing defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ruston (MLW No. 85215/Case No. 25-2753 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Wimes, J.

Drug and Firearm Offenses

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where the appeal waiver was valid, enforceable and applicable to defendant’s sentencing challenge, the court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Finney (MLW No. 85220/Case No. 26-1170 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Autrey, J.

Drug Conspiracy

Sentencing Enhancement; Possession of Dangerous Weapon

Defendant appealed the application of a two-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon during his sentencing for conspiracy to distribute drugs.

Where the government established that a firearm was present in defendant’s car, which was parked at his home that served as a meeting location for the conspiracy, the district court correctly determined that the firearm was connected to defendant’s offense.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Salamo-Roche (MLW No. 85206/Case No. 25-2291 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Drug Conspiracy

Sufficiency of Evidence; Calculation of Drug Quantity

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for various drug conspiracy and witness tampering, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of his prior drug conspiracy convictions and the district court’s drug quantity calculation.

Where multiple witnesses testified to defendant’s participation in the conspiracy and the government presented recordings of defendant’s wiretapped conversations, there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions, and any miscalculation in the attributable drug quantity did not affect defendant’s sentence as he would still have been subject to a statutory mandatory minimum.

Stras, J., concurring: “For the reasons explained in my concurrence in United States v. Harrison, I continue to have concerns about how we interpret and apply Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in cases like this one. 70 F.4th 1094, 1098–99 (8th Cir. 2023) -6- (Stras, J., concurring in the judgment). But here, just like in Harrison, ‘plenty of evidence’ supported Spider’s drug-conspiracy conviction, so ‘admitting the prior conviction[s] had no substantial influence on the jury’s verdict.’”

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Brunsting (MLW No. 85230/Case No. 25-2225 & 25-2233 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Drug Distribution

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug distribution, arguing that the district court’s consideration of conduct underlying dismissed charges violated his due process rights.

Where defendant’s Guidelines range was based on his career offender status, he had failed to show that uncharged conduct played a role in the sentencing decision, and in any event use of uncharged conduct was constitutionally permissible.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Barnes (MLW No. 85214/Case No. 25-2450 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Limbaugh, J.

Drug Distribution

Sufficiency of Evidence; Text Messages

Defendant appealed his conviction for distribution of fentanyl, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Where the evidence, including witness testimony, text messages and autopsy reports permitted a rational jury to find that defendant knowingly gave the victim drugs, the court upheld defendant’s conviction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Duncan (MLW No. 85234/Case No. 25-3307 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Bazis, J.

Drug Offense

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Sentencing Discretion

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug offense.

Where the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, the court found no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Cawthon (MLW No. 85196/Case No. 25-3482 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Drug Offense

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Defendant also challenged the effectiveness of her counsel.

Where defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was properly cognizable on collateral review and where the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable, the court was constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Gonzalez (MLW No. 85219/Case No. 26-1072 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Drug Offenses

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug, money laundering and assault offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, arguing that the waiver should not be enforced

Where the appeal waiver was valid, the court enforced it and concluded that it was applicable to defendant’s challenge on appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Cobbs (MLW No. 85218/Case No. 25-3462 & 25-3463 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Felon in Possession of Ammunition

Sufficiency of Evidence; Jury Instructions

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the possession and interstate commerce elements of his charge, the jury instructions and the constitutionality of the statute of conviction.

Where there was documentary evidence linking defendant to the bedroom where police found the ammunition and where government witnesses testified that the ammunition was not manufactured in the state, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Underdahl (MLW No. 85227/Case No. 24-3567 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where defendant’s challenge fell within the scope of his valid appeal waiver, the court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Thompson (MLW No. 85233/Case No. 25-3302 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Pitlyk, J.

Firearm Offense

Procedural Sentencing Error; Harmless Error

Defendant appealed the above-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearms offense, arguing that the district court made procedural errors in calculating his offense level and criminal history score.

Where the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence even if it accepted defendant’s Guidelines calculation, any procedural error was harmless.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Thomas (MLW No. 85195/Case No. 25-2341 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Moody, J.

Firearm Offense

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearm offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where defendant’s challenge fell within the scope of the appeal waiver, the court was constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Myrick (MLW No. 85212/Case No. 25-1520 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Kays, J.

Firearms Offenses

Motion to Suppress; Traffic Stop

Defendant appealed his conviction for firearms offenses, challenging the partial denial of his motion to suppress evidence of firearms found in his vehicle and statements he made during a traffic stop for a broken taillight. Defendant contended that officers improperly prolonged the stop and frisked him. The district court only found the frisk improper and suppressed evidence found during the search and statements defendant made before being given Miranda warnings.

Where the circumstances surrounding defendant’s consent to a search of his vehicle were not coercive, the unlawful frisk by itself was insufficient to render defendant’s consent involuntary.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Anderson (MLW No. 85216/Case No. 25-2994 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Sippel, J.

Money Laundering

Upward Variance; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to money laundering and tax fraud, stemming from her embezzlement of $2.7 million from a business and its owner. The district court granted the government’s request for an upward variance, citing the egregiousness of defendant’s offense and her criminal history of three prior convictions for fraud or embezzlement.

Where the district court exercised its discretion to concluded that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, there was no error in granting the government’s request for an upward variance.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ketcher (MLW No. 85213/Case No. 24-3142 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Operating Unlicensed Money Transfer Business

Sentencing Enhancement; Receiving Unlawful Proceeds

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, challenging the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement after finding that defendant received funds that he knew or believed were proceeds of unlawful activity. Defendant also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the record contained evidence indicating defendant knew of the illegality of the funds he handled, the court found no error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s evaluation of the sentencing factors or the sentence imposed.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Stone (MLW No. 85199/Case No. 25-1488 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence imposed following the fourth revocation of his supervised release.

Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors, the court found no abuse of discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Higgerson (MLW No. 85225/Case No. 26-1225 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.

Where the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Davidson (MLW No. 85226/Case No. 26-1496 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Defendant was on supervised release from a conviction for abusive sexual contact. He violated release by entering a private residence without permission and having unsupervised contact with minors. The district court varied upward from the Guidelines range in sentencing defendant.

Where defendant’s supervised release prohibited contact with minors regardless of age, there was no abuse of discretion in varying upward due to defendant’s repeated violations of supervised release.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Lajeunesse (MLW No. 85232/Case No. 25-2716 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Davis, J.

Unlawful Possession of Firearm

Downward Departure; House Arrest

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant unsuccessfully sought a downward departure to house arrest based on his various medical conditions, including paraplegia, frequent UTIs and skin ulcers. The district court denied the request and sentenced defendant at the bottom of the Guidelines range.

Where defendant presented no evidence that the BOP was unable to accommodate his conditions or provide adequate medical care, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying home confinement.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Rankins (MLW No. 85201/Case No. 25-1633 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.v

Voluntary Manslaughter

Acceptance of Responsibility; Upward Variance

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter as part of a plea deal dismissing other more serious charges. The district court denied defendant’s request for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and instead varied upward from the Guidelines range to impose the maximum sentence authorized by statute.

Where defendant had initially denied involvement with the underlying arson, the district court did not err in finding that defendant had not accepted responsibility and did not abuse its discretion in varying upward based on sufficient evidence presented at trial.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. White Owl (MLW No. 85204/Case No. 25-1862 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Traynor, J.

Employer-Employee

Disability Discrimination

Failure to Accommodate; Retaliatory Discharge

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to his former employer. Plaintiff was fired for insubordination after he refused to park in his assigned parking sport or a handicap spot. He sued defendants for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

Where plaintiff had failed to provide his employer with medical documentation as required by the employer’s policies, the employer’s failure to provide an accommodation was not attributable to it, and the employer had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to terminate plaintiff for insubordination after he continued parking outside his assigned spot.

Judgment is affirmed.

Hibbert v. MC Realty Group, LLC (MLW No. 85209/Case No. 25-2955 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Gaitan, J.

Sexual Harassment

Evasion of Judgment; RICO Claims

Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs had filed various state and federal workplace sexual harassment lawsuits, obtaining judgments totaling more than $1.8 million. After plaintiffs filed to collect their judgments, they filed RICO suits against defendants, alleging they engaged in a scheme to evade collection. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that the customs scheme identified by plaintiffs was not the proximate cause of their injury.

Where plaintiffs failed to show they could have reached goods brought into the U.S. through customs to satisfy their judgments, they had not proven that the alleged scheme was a but-for cause of their injury.

Judgment is affirmed.

Rennenger v. Aquawood, LLC (MLW No. 85203/Case No. 25-1845, 25-1847, 25-1848, 25-1850, 25-1853 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

Workplace Discrimination

EEOC Enforcement Action; Jury Instructions

The EEOC appealed the jury’s verdict on its enforcement action alleging that defendant imposed improperly lenient discipline against an employee who verbally assaulted a co-worker with racial epithets after a prior incident in which the co-worker allegedly used the same epithet against another worker. The employee filed a charge of discrimination, leading to the EEOC’s enforcement action alleging hostile work environment. On appeal, the EEOC argued that the district court failed to appropriately instruct the jury on its theory that the employer could have prevented the harassment.

Where the evidence presented at trial did not support a failure-to-prevent-harassment theory, the district court did not err in its jury instructions.

Judgment is affirmed.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sun Chemical Corporation (MLW No. 85228/Case No. 25-1318 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Ketchmark, J.

Immigration

Removal

Asylum; Dismissal of Administrative Appeal

Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal of an IJ’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to meaningfully identify the specific reasons supporting her challenge to the IJ’s decision.

Where petitioner’s appeal had failed to present a meaningful argument for the BIA’s review, the court found no error in summarily dismissing the appeal.

Petition is denied.

Henrriquez v. Blanche (MLW No. 85202/Case No. 25-1667 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Insurance

D&O Policy

Coverage; Evidence of Claim or Loss

Plaintiff, acting as receiver for Empirical Prime, LLC, appealed the grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss and the denial of leave for plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed suit seeking coverage under a D&O policy issued by defendant. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff had failed to allege a claim or loss that would trigger coverage, and concluded that any amendment would be futile.

Where the district court’s reasoning was sufficiently connected to the arguments raised by defendant in its motion to dismiss and where there was no evidence that any demand was made against Empirical, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint.

Judgment is affirmed.

King v. Texas Insurance Company (MLW No. 85210/Case No. 25-3401 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Phillips, J.

STOLI

Denial of Benefits; Legality of Policy

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiff served as the securities intermediary for Vida Longevity Fund, which had bought an insurance policy on the life of Jerry Fried from defendant’s predecessor. After Fried died, defendant denied paying the death benefit, arguing that the policy was void as a STOLI.

Where Fried was domiciled in New Jersey when the policy was issued, the district court did not err in applying New Jersey law as it had the most significant relationship to the matter, and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policy was a void STOLI under New Jersey law.

Judgment is affirmed.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. (MLW No. 85207/Case No. 25-2351 – 16 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Bazis, J.

Real Property

Denial of Certificate of Occupancy

Inverse Condemnation; Damages Award

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant had denied plaintiff a certificate of occupancy for four lots it had developed. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a CO for one of the lots and damages attributable to the time that plaintiff could not sell the lot for full value with a CO.

Where the district court reasonably found that the lot’s grading complied with the accepted practices for the subdivision, it did not err in ruling that defendant improperly denied a CO based on other grading requirements, but the district court failed to calculate damages based on the period in which the lot’s value was diminished, resulting in double recovery for plaintiff.

Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Northland Management & Construction, LLC v. City of Parkville (MLW No. 85223/Case No. 25-2239 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Wimes, J.

Mineral Lease

Conflicting Leases; Voiding

Plaintiffs appealed the adverse judgment of the district court resolving the parties’ dispute over which mineral lease governed the subject property. Plaintiffs argued that a recent lease governed the property, which defendants contended that a lease from 1948 governed. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the 1948 lease became void when the property was redeemed from the county, which had written the lease.

Where North Dakota law allowed a property owner to ratify a lease and the record showed that the owner who redeemed the subject property ratified the 1948 lease, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment where the record showed there was continuous production.

Judgment is affirmed.

Rolfsrud v. Continental Resources, Inc. (MLW No. 85208/Case No. 25-2942 & 25-3111 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Traynor, J.

Oil and Gas Leases

Statutory Royalties; Preemption of Contractual Royalties

Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants. Defendants held oil and gas leases for plaintiffs’ properties, under which plaintiffs were entitled to a 1/8th royalty on all gas sold. However, the parties disputed whether Arkansas’ statutory royalties preempted those contractual royalties. The district court concluded that they do and granted judgment for defendants.

Where the royalty statute was ambiguous, the court concluded that the Arkansas Supreme Court would hold that the law would not permit deductions beyond those specifically allowed by the parties’ lease, and subsequent amendment of the statute merely clarified the state legislature’s intent.

Judgment is reversed.

Pennington v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville), LLC (MLW No. 85221/Case No. 24-3382, 25-1428, 25-1462, & 25-1463 – 17 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Rudofsky, J.

Torts

Adulterated Pharmaceuticals

Fraud; Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its complaint. Plaintiff alleged that defendants perpetrated a scheme to sell doses of adulterated oncology drugs, which were sold in Minnesota and other states and administered to patients insured by plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted claims of fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of various Minnesota statutes. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that it was time-barred because news stories and SEC filings triggered the statute of limitations and plaintiff had not alleged that defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment.

Where defendants had publicly disclosed details about federal investigations into its products more than at least seven years before plaintiff filed suit, the district court correctly determined that the complaint was untimely under the applicable six-year limitations period.

Judgment is affirmed.

United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation (MLW No. 82517/Case No. 25-3205 – 17 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Frank, J.