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 1,389 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.
Of the 1,389 published rulings we track in the Eighth Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,386 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 342 summary-judgment rulings here, 214 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 125 let the worker’s claims continue; the rest resolved in other ways.
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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Eighth Circuit covers.
Baker
Narcio
Friedly
White
Walls
Roberson
Shklyar
Nagel
Breckenridge O'Fallon, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 682
Streza
Hufker
Employers & Cement Masons 90 Health & Welfare Fund v. JMY Plastering Specialist, LLC
United States Department of Labor v. Federal Armament, LLC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kroger Limited Partnership I
Wayne Holstad v. U.S. Dept. of Labor
Baker
City Union Mission, Inc. v. Mike Sharp
Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Pension Trust Fund v. Elite Rebar, LLC
United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Quality Pork Processors, Inc.
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Eason Construction, LLC
Mason v. D & D Pizza, Inc.
Employers & Cement Masons 90 Health & Welfare Fund v. JMY Plastering Specialist, LLC
Doe
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. B.F.W. Contracting, LLC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BNSF Railway Company
NLRB v. Noah's Ark Processors, LLC
McGuire
Connors
Khoshneviszadeh
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Buccaneer Excavating, LLC
Adkinson
Trustees of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local Union No. 36 Pension Plan v. H & H Sheet Metal & Contracting Company
St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council v. Millenium Installation Group, LLC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.
Bohner
Daniel
Scott
Jamerison
Hopman
Doe
Trimark Hotel Corporation v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 70
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. B.F.W. Contracting, LLC
Allen
Mosley
Urbanec
Walsh
Adkinson
Overby
Ertl
Taylor
Showing 201–250 of 1,389 rulings · Page 5 of 28
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.