OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Thursday August 25, 2016 ] The most recent opinions are for: [ 08/25/2016 ]  
DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office                          as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
151163P.pdf  08/25/2016  Joel Bremer  v.  Jeh Johnson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-1163
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
[PUBLISHED] {Colloton, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Bremer, a convicted sex offender, filed a I-130 on behalf of his wife, a native and citizen of the Philippines, and the USCIS denied the petition because the evidence Bremer submitted did not establish that he posed no risk to the woman and because the authors of the letters did not, in the agency's words, "appear to be aware of the full nature of [his]crime; in this class action, Bremer alleged the manner in which USCIS made "no-risk" determinations violates the APA and the Constitution, and the district court granted class certification and then dismissed the case, concluding Bremer sought judicial review of determinations that were committed to the "sole and unreviewable discretion" of the Secretary of Homeland Security; the district court erred in dismissing Count II of the complaint in which Bremer alleged that the Adam Walsh Act no longer applies to his petition since it had already been filed; the issue of whether the petition had been filed and if so, whether Clause viii of the Act is inapplicable, are predicate legal questions over which the district court had jurisdiction; the remaining claims challenge how the Secretary, acting through USCIS, has exercised his jurisdiction to make a no-risk determination under the Adam Walsh Act and judicial review of these claims is barred under the Immigration and Naturalization Act; claims that the USCIS's application of the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause rejected, as are Bremer's Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment and due process claims. Remanded for further proceedings on Count II.
152021P.pdf  08/25/2016  Colleen M. Auer  v.  City of Minot
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2021
                          and No:   15-2386
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck   
[PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. Order directing the City and its law firm to take certain actions with respect to copies of plaintiff's credit report was not an injunction and the order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1); nor is an order dismissing certain defendants reachable by mandamus since the issues can be raised in an eventual appeal of the district court's final judgment.
152723P.pdf  08/25/2016  United States  v.  Joshua Rodriguez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2723
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court erred in suppressing a firearm found during a warrantless search of defendant's home on the ground defendant did not consent to the search as an officer acting with objective good faith could reasonably believe that defendant had impliedly invited the officers into the home by opening the door wider and stepping back into the house; however, the protective sweep the officers conducted was done in the absence of an arrest or reasonable suspicion that dangerous persons might be present and was illegal; on remand, the district court should determine whether the independent source doctrine applies.
152789P.pdf  08/25/2016  Morgan Larson  v.  Ferrellgas Partners
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2789
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
[PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Antitrust. In action alleging defendants had acted in concert to reduce the amount of propane placed in pre-filled propane exchange tanks while maintaining the same price per tank, thus artificially increasing the price of the tanks, the district court did not err in finding plaintiffs' claims are barred by the four-year statute of limitations provision in the Sherman Act. Judge Benton, dissenting.
153156P.pdf  08/25/2016  Jeffrey Lockhart  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-3156
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin   
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court did not err in finding that while the government was 100% responsible for the collision at issue it was only 20% liable for plaintiff's injury given the advanced arthritic condition of plaintiff's shoulder; the district court did not err in concluding that, under Missouri law, it could find 80% of the damages attributable to an unrelated pre-existing condition and 20% of the damages attributable to the aggravation caused by the collision.