for the Eighth Circuit

153264P.pdf   02/07/2017  Kyle Soltesz  v.  Rushmore Plaza Civic Center
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3264
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In suit alleging municipal liability premised 
   on the decision of a final policymaker, the district court failed to 
   identify the final policymaker as a matter of state law and local city 
   ordinances as required by Supreme Court case law, and the matter is 
   remanded to the district court for a new trial; no legally sufficient 
   evidentiary basis exists to impose liability on a municipality for the 
   decisions of a final policymaker when the district court fails to identify 
   the policymaker as a matter of law before the claims reach the jury. 
  
153465P.pdf   02/07/2017  Jacobi Malone  v.  Robert Hinman
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3465
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Murphy, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In the circumstances of the case, the shooting 
   officer's decision to shoot the plaintiff as he ran towards another 
   officer and others while holding a gun was objectively reasonable as the 
   shooting officer had probable cause to believe plaintiff posed a threat of 
   serious physical harm to the officer and others, and the district court 
   did not err in granting the shooting officer summary judgment based on 
   qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; because the 
   shooting officer did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, there 
   can be no Section 1983 or Monell liability on behalf of the police chief 
   or the City of Little Rock. 
  
153514P.pdf   02/07/2017  Richard Aguilar  v.  PNC Bank, N.A.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3514
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Murphy, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Financial Fraud. In action by investors defrauded in a 
   criminal Ponzi scheme alleging defendant bank violated Missouri's Uniform 
   Fiduciaries Law, aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties, 
   conspired to breach fiduciary cuties and conspired to violate RICO, the 
   district court did not err in granting the bank's motion for summary 
   judgment; [for further details of the criminal case resulting from the 
   fraud, see United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2014)]; 
   plaintiffs' RICO and common-law claims fail because their evidence is 
   insufficient to establish a reasonable fact dispute as to whether the 
   defendant's predecessor bank objectively manifested an agreement to 
   participate in criminal activity with the founder of the scheme, had a 
   meeting of the minds with him or substantially assisted or encouraged his 
   conduct; with respect to the claims under Missouri's Uniform Fiduciaries 
   Law, plaintiffs' evidence failed to show the predecessor bank had actual 
   knowledge that the founder of the scheme was breaching his fiduciary duty 
   to the plaintiffs or that the bank's actions were commercially 
   unjustifiable and amounted to bad faith. 
  
153975P.pdf   02/07/2017  American Fire and Casualty Co.  v.  Mary Hegel
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3975
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck   
   [PUBLISHED] [Strand, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Insurance. Under North Dakota choice of law principles, 
   Kentucky law should be applied to interpret the insurance contract, and 
   the district court erred in applying North Dakota law; the finding that 
   the insurer was required to provide Uninsured Motorist coverage to the 
   insured is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions to enter 
   judgment in favor of the insurer. 
  
161021U.pdf   02/07/2017  Mario Garcia-Solorzano  v.  Loretta E. Lynch
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1021
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Wollman and 
   Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ had specific and cogent reasons 
   for determining that petitioner was not credible and that decision is 
   supported by substantial evidence; the combination of an adverse 
   credibility finding and the lack of any corroborating evidence for the 
   claim of persecution means the claim must fail, regardless of the reason 
   for the alleged persecution. 
  
161735P.pdf   02/07/2017  Acciona Windpower, etc.  v.  City of West Branch
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1735
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Kelly, Circuit Judge, and Montgomery, 
   District Judge] 
   Civil case - Contracts. The district court did not err in determining 
   defendant City of West Branch breached the parties' contract in which it 
   agreed to rebate a portion of plaintiff's taxes for eight years if 
   plaintiff would expand its business into the City; the district court's 
   interpretation of the contract is consistent with its plain language and 
   gives full effect to all of the agreement's provisions; the agreement does 
   not violate Iowa law as municipalities have the ability to make the kind 
   of tax rebate payments contemplated by the agreement; claim plaintiff 
   impermissibly changed its theory of damages on the eve of trial rejected. 
  
161741U.pdf   02/07/2017  Dr. Girish Sahu  v.  Minneapolis Community and
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1741
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment. 
  
161900P.pdf   02/07/2017  American Railcar Industries  v.  Hartford Insurance Company
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1900
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Insurance. Under Arkansas law, by failing to give Hartford 
   prompt notice that its employee had filed a tort action, plaintiff did not 
   strictly comply with the provisions of the insurance policy and forfeited 
   any right to recover from Hartford; Hartford had not unambiguously denied 
   coverage and plaintiff was not relieved of its duty to inform Hartford of 
   suit. 
  
162413U.pdf   02/07/2017  United States  v.  Thomas Crossland
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2413
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant was ineligible for a sentence 
   reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 as his 
   sentences for his drug offenses were based on the applicable statutory 
   maximums rather than the sentencing guidelines. 
  
166021P.pdf   02/07/2017  Sara Fern  v.  FedLoan Servicing
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-6021
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shodeen, Author, with Kressel and Federman, Bankruptcy 
   Judges] 
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in 
   discharging debtor's student loans as she lacked the current or future 
   earning power to repay them, was living within her means and would suffer 
   undue hardship if the loans were not discharged.