Kermit Edward Bye

How Judge Bye rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Bye no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 2016
Served
2000–2016
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
2000-03-09
Education
University of North Dakota (B.S., 1959); University of North Dakota School of Law (J.D., 1962)
Signed orders read
33

How Judge Bye decides

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

What persuades

A sophisticated-means sentencing enhancement requires complex or intricate concealment. The government's difficulty calculating a tax loss does not establish sophistication when that difficulty resulted from a simple failure to keep records.

“The mere fact the tax loss was difficult to calculate does not prove sophisticated means were used to conceal the offense.”

Substantial force is least justified against a suspected nonviolent misdemeanant who is not threatening anyone, actively resisting, or trying to flee. On that account, a leg sweep that caused a broken leg could not be resolved as objectively reasonable on summary judgment.

“Assuming once again Montoya's story is true, the contours of the right at issue were sufficiently clear to inform a reasonable officer in Officer Hooper's position it was unlawful for him to perform a ‘leg sweep’ and throw to the ground a nonviolent, suspected misdemeanant who was not threatening anyone, was not actively resisting arrest, and was not attempting to flee.”

Procedural preferences

A benefits administrator applying a mental-health limitation must support its conclusion that mental-health treatment was the hospitalization's primary focus. Evidence that it was one focus is not enough when objective physical conditions drove admission, continued care, and discharge.

“While there is certainly evidence that mental health treatment was one focus of S.W.'s hospitalization, we conclude there is insufficient evidence to support the determination that S.W.'s mental health was the primary focus of the hospitalization.”

Cautions

An ERISA summary plan description cannot create discretionary authority absent from the policy when the policy specifies a formal amendment process and disclaims the summary's power to alter the plan.

“a grant of discretion to the plan administrator, appearing only in a summary plan description, does not vest the administrator with discretion where the policy provides a mechanism for amendment and disclaims the power of the summary plan description to alter the plan.”

Whether related companies constitute an integrated employer under Title VII turns on their operational interrelation, common management, centralized labor control, and common ownership or financial control.

“The court adopted a four-part test treating related but distinct entities as an integrated enterprise based on 1) interrelation of operations, 2) common management, 3) centralized control of labor relations, and 4) common ownership or financial control.”

Signed rulings

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

Ronald A. Krentz v. Robertson Fire Protection District
No. 99-4235 · 2000-10-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We affirm.”

Frederick Pennington, Jr. v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
· 2001-07-24
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We reverse and remand this action to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Steven Hart
· 2003-04-02
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“We affirm the district court's tax loss calculation, but reverse the district court's two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(2), and remand for resentencing.”

United States v. Donald Michael Hutman
· 2003-08-12
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“We reverse in part and affirm in part.”

Darlene Fick, on Behalf of Sarah Fick v. Sioux Falls School District 49-5
· 2003-09-11
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.”

Elijah Clark, III v. Riverview Fire Protection District
· 2004-01-05
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For these reasons, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Fire Protection District.”

United States v. Javier Barajas Ramirez
· 2004-03-26
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.”

United States v. Donald L. Dixon
· 2004-04-02
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for resentencing.”

Kforce, Inc. v. Surrex Solutions Corporation
· 2006-02-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Candelaria Dominguez-Capistran v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
· 2006-02-23
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“We therefore affirm the decision of the BIA. The order of deportation shall be stayed for ninety days so Dominguez-Capistran may seek new representation and, if she chooses to do so, petition the BIA to reopen her case based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Breitkreutz v. Cambrex Charles City, Inc.
· 2006-05-15
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.”

Robinson v. Potter
· 2006-07-11
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because she has not shown any of these reasons are pretextual, the district court did not err in denying summary judgment on her claims of retaliation. ... Accordingly, we affirm.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

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

A historical record

Judge Bye no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.