Filed: May 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 95-3646NE _ Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Robert M. Cook, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 13, 1996 Filed: May 22, 1996 _ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. (IBP) appeals from an adverse judgment in its diversity of citizenship libel action against lawyer Robert M. Cook. IBP contends the district court improperly found tha
Summary: _ No. 95-3646NE _ Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Robert M. Cook, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 13, 1996 Filed: May 22, 1996 _ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. (IBP) appeals from an adverse judgment in its diversity of citizenship libel action against lawyer Robert M. Cook. IBP contends the district court improperly found that..
More
_____________ No. 95-3646NE _____________ Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Robert M. Cook, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _____________ Submitted: May 13, 1996 Filed: May 22, 1996 _____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _____________ PER CURIAM. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. (IBP) appeals from an adverse judgment in its diversity of citizenship libel action against lawyer Robert M. Cook. IBP contends the district court improperly found that IBP was a limited purpose public figure in the context of the issues in this case. We disagree. A review of the record and the parties' briefs shows the ruling of the district court was correct. IBP also contends the district court improperly instructed the jury on the meaning of the clear and convincing standard of proof. Again, we disagree. The district court has a great deal of discretion in framing the jury instructions, and the challenged instruction in this case properly informed the jury of the applicable law. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
