Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), holding that Hanover Insurance Company owed no duty to defend or indemnify three former executives under a directors and officers liability policy issued to their former employer. Applying Missouri law under de novo review, the court determined that the appellants intended to assume personal liability when they signed separate Guaranty Agreements for corporate loans without referencing their executive designations on the signature lines. The court reasoned that interpreting these signatures as acting in an official capacity would render the guaranties meaningless by effectively having the corporation guarantee its own debt. Because the appellants did not act solely within their capacity as executives, they were not “Insured Individuals” covered by the policy. The district court’s judgment denying coverage remains in effect, and the appellants’ answer and counterclaims are deemed amended under 28 U.S.C. §1653.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The eighth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order upholding the denial of withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The court held that the petitioner could not rely on a family-based particular social group because that theory was not exhausted before the agency: his counsel had expressly abandoned it before the immigration judge and proceeded only on a different proposed social group. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), the BIA properly applied its waiver rule and refused to consider the family-based group for the first time on appeal, and the BIA had no obligation to raise that theory on its own. The court also said the petitioner did not challenge the BIA’s separate conclusion that the particular social group he actually pursued before the immigration judge was not legally cognizable. Because failure to establish a cognizable particular social group is dispositive of a withholding claim, that unchallenged ruling independently defeated relief. Any arguments about the immigration judge’s other reasons for denial were therefore unnecessary and unreviewable. As a practical matter, the removal order remains in place and the denial of withholding of removal stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief on a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rejecting the appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The appellant argued his counsel was deficient for failing to contend that his prior Kansas conviction did not qualify as a “felony drug offense” under 21 U.S.C. § 802(44), which would have precluded enhanced punishment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The court applied the categorical and modified categorical approaches to analyze the divisibility of the Kansas statute (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-4162(a)). Citing *Mathis v. United States* and *Rincon v. Garland*, the court determined that drug type was an essential element of the offense under Kansas law, rendering the statute divisible. Because the appellant’s prior conviction for possession of marijuana qualified as a felony drug offense, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the enhancement, and the performance was objectively reasonable given the unsettled nature of the law at the time.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing the appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Agency’s factual findings, noting that where the BIA cites Matter of Burbano without disagreement with the IJ, it reviews the IJ’s decision as its own. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court held that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of showing the Colombian government is unable or unwilling to protect them from the private actor group “Front 53.” The record contained no evidence that Front 53 members are government officials or that the government cannot control them; furthermore, country conditions evidence indicated the government actively combats extortionist groups. The court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the Agency ignored evidence regarding the group’s nature because they failed to identify any specific evidence in the record. Regarding CAT protection, the court found substantial evidence supported the denial because the record did not compel a conclusion that the petitioners faced a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of Colombian officials. The court clarified that generalized evidence of violence and crime, or general government ineffectiveness in preventing crime, is insufficient to establish such a likelihood. As a practical consequence, the petition for review is denied, and the petitioners’ opposed motion to stay removal is also denied. Consequently, the temporary stay of removal entered pursuant to General Order 6.4(c) is lifted effective immediately, allowing for the enforcement of the removal order.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

Docket: 2:23-cv-00080-BMM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Peter Thompson’s complaint against U.S. Bank National Association and other defendants, as well as the denial of his motions for leave to amend, extensions of time, and recusal. The court held that Claims One through Three were barred by res judicata under Montana law because the parties in the current action were identical or in privity with those in a prior federal appeal (Thompson v. Sullivan), the subject matter involved the same property and loan, and a final judgment had already been entered in the prior action. Regarding Claim Four, the court found the complaint failed to plausibly allege how MERS’s breach of an oral agreement violated the Montana Consumer Protection Act, the UCC, or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Claim Five was properly dismissed because Thompson did not adequately allege that the defendants acted with conscious disregard of risk regarding property valuation or engaged in a conspiracy, noting that Auction.com had removed the disputed listing upon notification. Claim Six was dismissed as moot because the defendant had already provided the requested reinstatement or payoff information. Finally, the appellate court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend due to Thompson’s undue delay and dilatory tactics, denying an extension of time for lack of good cause, and rejecting his unsupported allegations of judicial bias. The practical consequence is that the dismissal stands, the case is closed, and no further amendments or proceedings are permitted on these claims.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Elizabeth Martin’s pro se civil rights action alleging violations stemming from the Missouri Supreme Court’s suspension of her law license. Applying de novo review, the court held that the district court correctly lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Martin’s claims alleged an injury arising directly from a state-court judgment and sought to overturn that judgment. The court further determined that it would not consider new claims Martin attempted to raise in her opposition to the motion to dismiss, as such issues were not properly preserved for appeal. Consequently, the district court’s dismissal order stands, and no relief is granted to the appellant.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

Docket: 3:23-cv-13532-MCR-ZCB

The eleventh-circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment in an employment discrimination case brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The court held that while no reasonable juror could conclude the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on his disabilities because the decision-maker lacked knowledge of those disabilities and did not act as a cat’s paw for someone who did, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the employer caused the plaintiff’s termination by failing to accommodate his known disabilities. Applying de novo review and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, the court determined that a jury could find the failure to provide requested accommodations—such as prioritization and a less stressful environment—negatively impacted the plaintiff’s conditions of employment leading to his firing. The case is remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the specific accommodations requested were reasonable or sufficiently defined.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The fourth-circuit granted a petition for review and remanded an immigration case involving claims for asylum and withholding of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court held that the lower courts erred in denying relief to a native of El Salvador who alleged persecution on account of membership in her family as a particular social group. Applying the nexus requirement under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 1231(b)(3)(A), the panel determined that a protected ground must be “at least one central reason” for persecution, regardless of mixed motives. The court found legal error in the lower courts’ analysis because they focused on why the persecutor targeted the petitioner’s former partner rather than why he threatened the petitioner herself, noting that her familial relationship was the reason she was singled out. Because family membership qualifies as a particular social group and the record compels the conclusion that this nexus was met, the court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

Docket: 4:22-md-03047-YGR

The ninth-circuit dismissed Meta Platforms, Inc., TikTok, and plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s rulings denying Section 230 motions to dismiss were interlocutory orders not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides a defense to liability rather than immunity from suit, meaning denials of such defenses do not satisfy the stringent requirements for immediate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Specifically, the court found the district court’s decision failed the *Cohen* factors as it was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, was not conclusive given the court’s indication of willingness to revisit the issue, and was not completely separate from the merits of the action. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed and the multidistrict litigation will continue in the district court where Section 230 immunity claims can be reviewed after final judgment.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

Docket: 2:24-cv-00099-JNW

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment enforcing an arbitrator’s award regarding a multiemployer pension plan’s withdrawal liability calculation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court held that the Plan’s use of interest-rate assumptions published by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation did not satisfy ERISA’s requirement that withdrawal-liability assumptions reflect the “best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan” under 29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(1). Relying on *GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund v. MNG Enters., Inc.*, the court found PBGC rates were improper because they did not account for the Plan’s assets or future experience. The district court correctly ordered recalculation using a 7% interest rate, which the arbitrator found best reflected anticipated experience and was presumed correct under 29 U.S.C. § 1401(c) absent clear preponderance evidence to rebut it. Additionally, the court denied the City’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal under 29 U.S.C. § 1451(e), exercising discretion based on factors including the Plan’s ability to pay and whether participants would benefit from an award. The Plan must recalculate the City’s withdrawal liability using the 7% interest rate.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.