Jane Louise Kelly

How Judge Kelly rules, drawn from 100 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2013-04-25
ABA rating
Qualified
Education
Duke University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1987); Harvard Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1991)
Signed orders read
100

How Judge Kelly decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Voting Rights Act analysis required an intensely local appraisal of the district’s political conditions; a protected racial group did not lose statutory protection merely by reaching a bare numerical majority.

“The section 2 inquiry is one that ‘requires an “intensely local appraisal” of the challenged district.’”

The reviewed contract dispute enforced conditions precedent: no commission was earned at termination because the employer had not received revenue and the lease had not yet been executed.

“It is undisputed that the Primebar commission payments were subject to at least two conditions precedent, neither of which had been met at the time Karlen was terminated, and thus no commission had been ‘earned’ or was owing under the employment contract at the time of his termination.”

At the pleading stage, she treats loss of a meaningful review opportunity as actionable employment harm even when the underlying work restrictions predated it. Under the governing low threshold, moving from possible future reconsideration to a permanent refusal to review plausibly caused some harm.

“And the harm Palmer alleges is not overly speculative—he went from accepting an invitation to submit further medical information in support of his fitness-for-duty to losing any chance to prove his fitness at a later date.”

When a government defendant offers no rational relationship between its stated concerns and its unequal treatment, she will not invent a justification on its behalf. In Northland, the record undermined the city's claimed drainage rationale for withholding an occupancy certificate.

“We decline the City’s invitation to speculate on its behalf as to possible reasonable bases for its actions.”

She chooses a statutory measurement method by asking which option best accommodates the regulated industry's real operating pattern and the statute's purpose. For fluctuating construction employment, cumulative headcount fit those aims better than a monthly snapshot tied only to the contribution schedule.

“But here, of the two options presented, GE’s preferred method is less arbitrary and more faithful to the statute and the congressional intent behind it.”

Procedural preferences

A legal-sufficiency challenge following a jury verdict had to be preserved in a Rule 50(a) motion before submission to the jury; remittitur could not substitute for that step.

“A motion for remittitur is not a vehicle for challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a claim. To do that, a party must file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) prior to submission of the case to the jury.”

A putative class member receives limitations tolling unless the certified class definition unambiguously excludes the claim. At dismissal, she accepts pleaded facts and reasonable inferences rather than adopting the defendant's narrower reconstruction of the earlier class.

“Accepting Hess’s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Hess was not unambiguously excluded from the certified class.”

A tax-petition filing deadline was nonjurisdictional and presumptively subject to equitable tolling because Congress did not clearly foreclose that case-specific relief.

“We conclude the deadline in § 6213(a) is subject to equitable tolling.”

Cautions

Restitution required proof of the identifiable victim’s actual loss; a court-created valuation could not replace the government’s evidentiary burden.

“These statutes, in turn, require that a restitution award be ‘limited to the victim’s provable actual loss,’ which the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.”

A bare ownership assertion in a civil-forfeiture claim was insufficient under controlling circuit precedent without enough specificity to identify the claimant’s interest.

“A careful reading of our decision in $154,853.00 demonstrates that we found the ownership claim faulty not because of the scope of the claimed interest. Instead, we determined that the claimed interest was not described with sufficient specificity.”

A limiting instruction cannot always cure highly prejudicial evidence directed at the only disputed element. In Simpson, repeated references to an anonymous gun tip supplied the jury's only evidence of actual possession, while officer conduct was not contested and provided no genuine need for the tip.

“Under these circumstances, the resulting risk of prejudice was simply too great to be overcome by an instruction.”

In dissent, she would not treat a person's deletion of private phone material during a consensual interview as probable cause without evidence connecting the deleted material to a crime.

“a person’s statement during a consensual interview that he is deleting nude images of himself, combined with a refusal to allow officers to watch his phone screen as he did so, is not enough for probable cause.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region v. Parson
19-2882, 19-3134 · 2021-06-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Missouri Governor Michael L. Parson and various other state officials (collectively, Missouri) appeal the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of several abortion-related provisions of Missouri House Bill 126 (HB 126). We affirm.”

Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant School District
16-4511 · 2018-07-03
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The district court found a section 2 violation after engaging in the requisite precondition analysis and conducting a thorough totality-of-the-circumstances balancing. We affirm.”

Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc.
16-1305 · 2017-04-03
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We remand the issue of costs to the district court to determine whether it is the prevailing practice in Iowa to bill clients separately for Westlaw research, and affirm in all other respects.”

Jerry Friedman v. Kelly Farmer
14-2575 · 2015-06-11
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and Friedman appeals. We affirm the judgment.”

American Family Mutual Ins. v. Steven G. Graham
14-2174 · 2015-07-07
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Graham... appeal[s] the denial of Graham's post-trial motions and the district court's enforcement of a stipulated-damages clause... We affirm the judgment.”

Mountain Home Flight Service, Inc. v. Baxter County
12-3000 · 2014-07-15
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.”

Nathan McGuire v. Independent School District No. 833
16-2685 · 2017-07-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We affirm, finding that the 2013 amendment to Minnesota Statute § 122A.33 does not grant McGuire a property interest in the renewal of his coaching contract.”

United States v. Sheldon Tree Top
18-1816 · 2019-07-26
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“These statutes, in turn, require that a restitution award be 'limited to the victim's provable actual loss,' which the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Eugene Newcombe v. United States
18-1681 · 2019-08-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The district court dismissed Newcombe's claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Newcombe appeals, and we affirm.”

Chad Menter Hill v. James L. Snyder
17-3572 · 2019-03-29
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Upon careful consideration, we affirm the order of the district court.”

United States v. Bryan Binkholder
17-2688 · 2018-11-20
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Binkholder appeals the district court's determination under § 2B1.1 and several other issues arising from the resentencing. We affirm.”

United States v. Edward Merritt
18-2500 · 2019-08-16
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Merritt appeals his sentence, arguing that his prior drug conspiracy conviction is not a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.

Draft for Judge Kelly with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kelly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Kelly's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace