Employment Rulings in the Eighth Circuit
The Eighth Circuit covers the federal courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,462 published rulings we track here (1973–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
How These Rulings Ended
Of the 1,462 published rulings we track in the Eighth Circuit.
What Happens at Each Stage
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,452 rulings we could classify by stage were decided.
A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
Of the 310 summary-judgment rulings here, 196 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 114 let the worker’s claims continue.
An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
A decision entered because one side did not respond to the case at all.
Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.
Top Claim Types
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Eighth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Eighth Circuit
Ellis
Hopman
Tanner
Davis
United Food & Commercial Workers' Union, Local No. 293 v. Noah's Ark Processors, LLC
Bohner
Freeman
Hopman
Local 513 International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. James Martin Excavating Inc.
Gary Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Anthony Collins v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
Parada
Guadalupe Gonzalez v. R. Bendt
Lewis County Rural Electric Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 2
Hernandez
Johnson v. JGOO, Inc.
Baker
Zinn
Harris
Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Taylor
Mount
In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation (Klein v. Prime Therapeutics, LLC)
Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of
International Union v. Trane U.S. Inc.
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Simms Building Group, Inc.
O'Neill
Durham v. Laborers' Benefits Saint Louis
Wubben
WM Crittenden Operations LLC v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union 1529
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division/IBT v. Union Pacific Railroad
Greger
Brown
Petrone
Burkes
Mekasha
Ranney
Langrell
Langrell
King
David Swinton v. Adam J. Starke
Potts
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.
Watson
Hopman
Perry
United Food & Commercial Workers' Union, Local No. 293 v. Noah's Ark Processors, LLC
Yousefzadeh
Local 513, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Edwards-Kamadulski, L.L.C.
Garza
Showing 451–500 of 1,462 rulings · Page 10 of 30
Browse Other Circuits
Explore employment rulings from the other federal circuits.
These figures summarize publicly available published court opinions only. Published opinions over-represent summary-judgment rulings (decisions made without a trial) and appeals, because those are the stages where judges most often write formal opinions. Most workplace disputes settle privately and never appear here at all. A ruling’s outcome reflects many case-specific factors and is not a prediction for any other situation. Read more about how we source and classify rulings.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of outcomes and case stages is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.