Eighth Circuit Review of Constitutional Limits on Punitive Damages & Proper Measure of Attorneys Fee Award

Posted on October 22, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

On October 20, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument in a federal housing case in which a jury, after a five-day trial, awarded about $13,000 of compensatory damages, and over $250,000 in punitive damages. The District Court Judge,Donald O’Brien (N.D. Iowa) sharply lowered the jury’s punitive damages award and denied the prevailing plaintiff’s claimed attorneys’ fees of $118,000, lowering them to about $20,000… Continue reading →

Eighth Circuit Case on "Excited Utterance" Exception to Hearsay Bar

Posted on October 24, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

Experienced Minnesota personal injury attorney, Tom Conlin, argued this week to revive a lawsuit against Lutsen Mountains ski area lost on summary judgment. An eye witness made statements around the time of a devastating accident, statements which she later disavowed. (The accident apparently left the injured plaintiff unable to testify as to the circumstances of his injury.) Having rejected contemporaneous evidence of this eye witness, Judg… Continue reading →

“Option to Renew” vs. “Option to Extend” – Eighth Circuit Affirms, Time For AMC Showcase to Pay Up

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Seth Leventhal

… its request for award of attorneys’ fees was postponed. Now the landlord can tack on $45,000+ onto its tenant’s rent, owed due to AMC Showplace Theatre’s litigation loss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed Judge Montgomery’s ruling in favor of Block E landlord, Camelot. (StarTribune coverage is here.) … Continue reading →

Eighth Circuit Hears Another Wersal Challenge to Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct

Posted on December 20, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

Blogging on Administrative Law and the Public Sector, E.L. Lipman on his blog Within The Scope, sums it up well. … Continue reading →

The Simple Claim of a Harmful Side Effect/The Complexity of Federal Preemption of State Law Claims

Posted on November 9, 2010 by Seth Leventhal

is now considering whether to weigh in on the case and has sought input from the Solicitor General as to whether this case should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to let the Eighth Circuit decision stand. If you’ve read this far and are still interested, try reading more here. … Continue reading →

Schedin v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. Heading to The 12-Person Jury

Posted on December 6, 2010 by Seth Leventhal

…s of the drug, an antibiotic. Levaquin included a warning but sometime after Schedin’s incident, the warning was changed and made more prominent (made into a “black box” warning in 2008). Subsequent warning label changes would be a classic “subsequent remedial measure” inadmissible at trial if it were not for the fact that the label change was mandated by the FDA, U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim has held. … Continue reading →

Case Challenging "Document Preparation Fees" Preempted

Posted on October 20, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

In late September, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Casey v. North American Savings, 8th Cir. File No. 09-1096, on an issue of federal preemption in the context of the regulation of federal lending institutions and today the court issued its ruling. It is a case of first impression with potential ramifications for borrowers and lenders in Missouri, and perhaps more broadly in the Eighth Circuit. Today the Court he… Continue reading →

(Fraudulent?) Misjoinder: 8th Circuit Argument on a Hot Jurisdictional Issue

Posted on September 26, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

Pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is an issue of first impression for the Eighth Circuit, an issue that several district courts have confronted, but only one other circuit court, the Eleventh Circuit (Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp.) — a decision whose analysis has been subject to criticism). So-called “fraudulent misjoinder” — a judicial gloss on a tricky issue of diversity j… Continue reading →

Lenders Lose Preemption Claim Resulting in a Circuit Split

Posted on August 10, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

…d under the federal Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 1831d (“DIDA”). The district court agreed, denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand and dismissed the case. The Eighth Circuit (Murphy, Hansen, Bye) reversed the district court. “Complete preemption does not exist here because the language of DIDA, unlike the National Bank Act, does not reflect Congress’ intent to provid… Continue reading →

Rule 60 & The Intersection of Criminal and Bankruptcy Law

Posted on July 2, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

Allen Stanford, Marc Dreier, Bernie Madoff, Tom Petters… More than a few cases these days are at or near the intersection of criminal law and bankruptcy law and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reviewing an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit has weighed in today. The basic facts of the In re: Racing Services, Inc. decision were that a company, Racing Services (“RSI”) and its pre… Continue reading →

Product Recalls & Class Actions (continued)

Posted on July 22, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

Last March, in regard to a product liability case concerning a recall of a crib with a defective dropside, this blog suggested a pending Eighth Circuit case, if it went the plaintiffs’ way, would signal a dramatic change in Eighth Circuit law, but went on to predict that plaintiffs would lose. Today, the proverbial “other shoe” dropped, and, as predicted, plaintiffs lost the appeal of the dismissal, with prejudice, of their c… Continue reading →

U.S. Supreme Court Clears Way for FAA Stay by Non-Signatory

Posted on May 7, 2009 by Seth Leventhal

…and the simplicity of a bright-line rule that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement could not obtain an interlocutory appeal under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act.) Now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and covered in this blog on March 13 is a case where the non-signatory seeks to compel arbitration against an entity that had entered into an arbitration agreement with a third-party. The U.S. Supreme Court c… Continue reading →

Minnesota Litigator

News & Commentary About Minnesota Litigation
From the Law Firm of LEVENTHAL pllc

Search Results for: label/Eighth%20Circuit