8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 8, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

CIVIL OPINIONS

Administrative

ADA; Hearing Impairment; Meaningful Access

Plaintiffs, both hearing-impaired individuals, sued defendant under the Americans with Disabilities Act after it initially declined to offer captioning for performances at defendant's theater in addition to ASL-interpreted performances. Defendant later agreed to provide a single closed-captioned showing for each production. The District Court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, ruling that defendant was required to provide captioning whenever timely requested.

Where providing only one showing of a production would deny persons with hearing an equal opportunity to enjoy defendant's facilities that non-hearing impaired individuals enjoyed, defendant had failed to provide meaningful access under the ADA.

Judgment is affirmed.

18-2352 & 18-2577 Childress v. Fox Associates LLC, appealed from the Eastern District of Missouri, Shepherd, J.

Administrative

Farm Equipment Manufacturers and Dealers; Regulation; Contract Clause

Defendant appealed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of North Dakota Senate Bill 2289, which regulated the relationship between farm-equipment manufacturers and dealers. The District Court concluded that the legislation violated manufacturers' federal constitutional rights under the Contract Clause.

Where the statute merely benefited a particular economic actor and did not enumerate primary public benefits, the state failed to prove a significant legitimate government interest in the exercise of its police power.

Shepherd, J., dissenting: "I respectfully disagree with the Court's conclusion that North Dakota has not met its burden of showing a significant and legitimate public purpose underlying SB 2289. Because this Court has stated that a state's interest in serving its farming and rural communities is "unquestionably significant and legitimate,"Equip. Mfrs. Inst. v. Janklow, 300 F.3d 842, 860 (8th Cir. 2002), and SB 2289 sufficiently evinces such a public purpose, I respectfully dissent.

Judgment is affirmed.

18-1115 Association of Equipment Manufacturers v. Burgum, appealed from the District of North Dakota, Colloton, J.

Civil Practice

Jurisdiction; Tribal Court Authority

Where Indian tribe members sued oil and gas companies in tribal court in a dispute involving the practice of flaring natural gas wells, arguing that the companies owed royalties from wasted gas, and the companies initiated an action in federal court after unsuccessfully contesting the tribal court's jurisdiction over them in tribal court, the District Court's preliminary injunction is affirmed because suits about oil and gas on allotted trust lands are governed by federal rather than tribal law, so the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over the non-tribal oil and gas companies. Judgment is affirmed.

18-1824 Kodiak Oil & Gas Inc. v. Burr, appealed from the District of North Dakota,Grasz, J.

Civil Rights

42 U.S.C. 1983; Excessive Force; Qualified Immunity

Plaintiff, an elementary school student, sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants unreasonably seized him and used excessive force by handcuffing him. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The District Court concluded that disputed material facts precluded summary-judgment dismissal of plaintiff's claim.

Where defendants did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights by handcuffing him because plaintiff attempted to flee and therefore posed a safety risk to himself, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's claims.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

17-3602 K.W.P. v. Kansas City Public Schools, appealed from the Western District of Missouri,Smith, J.

Civil Rights

Deprivation of Liberty; Qualified Immunity

Where plaintiff sued a prison official and a probation officer claiming that he was unlawfully deprived of liberty based on the officer's ex parte communication to the state court incorrectly stating that Section 217.362 permitted his continued detention, the complaint did not contain sufficient allegations to overcome qualified immunity, so the judgment is affirmed. Judgment is affirmed.

18-2807 Sandknop v. Department of Corrections, appealed from the Western District of Missouri,Erickson, J.

Civil Rights

Driver's Privacy Protection Act; Class Certification

Vicarious Liability

The parties cross-appealed from the judgment awarding plaintiff punitive but not actual damages for defendant's admitted violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and direct liability for the city, while the city challenged imposition of vicarious liability.

Where defendant accomplished his tort due to his official position and use of city equipment, the District Court did not err in allowing vicarious liability, but...