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.
141852P.pdf   05/22/2015  Delbert Hudson  v.  Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1852
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Bye and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Family Medical Leave Act. There was an issue of material fact 
   as to whether plaintiff was restored from leave before being terminated, 
   and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant 
   employer on plaintiff's claim that the employer denied his exercise of his 
   FMLA rights; there was also a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 
   defendant's ground for terminating plaintiff was a pretext for 
   discrimination based on his use of FMLA leave; reversed and remanded for 
   further proceedings. 
142829P.pdf   05/22/2015  United States  v.  Quinton Manning
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2829
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado    
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant's constitutional challenges to 
   SORNA have been rejected by this court and are foreclosed by Eighth 
   Circuit precedent; the court joins other circuits in rejecting defendant's 
   claim that the SMART Guidelines were not a proper exercise of the Attorney 
   General's authority under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(d) to specify whether 
   SORNA's registration requirements apply to pre-Act offenders. 
146044P.pdf   05/22/2015  Darin Seifert  v.  Kyle Carlson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-6044
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota - Fergus Falls    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shodeen, Author, with Federman, Chief Judge, and Nail, 
   Bankruptcy Judge] 
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court's determination that the 
   issue of whether the debtor was entitled to exempt certain farm proceeds 
   under state law was moot was in error, and the matter is remanded for 
   further proceedings.