Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Colonia Ins. Co. v. Sharon Newsom, 98-3460 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 98-3460 Visitors: 33
Filed: Aug. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3460 _ Colonia Insurance Company, a New * York corporation; Associated Insurance* Management Corp., a New York * corporation; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * Robert R. Cloar; James E. Nesland; * Richard P. Salgado; William J. * Kelleher, Jr., * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western City National Bank; Al E. Bradley; * District of Arkansas. Larry H. Putman; Phillip Richmond; CC * General
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-3460 ___________ Colonia Insurance Company, a New * York corporation; Associated Insurance* Management Corp., a New York * corporation; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * Robert R. Cloar; James E. Nesland; * Richard P. Salgado; William J. * Kelleher, Jr., * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western City National Bank; Al E. Bradley; * District of Arkansas. Larry H. Putman; Phillip Richmond; CC * General Agency; Carolyn Jean Cooper; * [UNPUBLISHED] Donald Maurice Coleman; Marilyn J. * Coleman; William R. Beason; Billy W. * Beason; Michelle Thomas; Mark A. * Thomas; * * Defendants, * * Sharon Newsom; * * Defendant-Appellee, * * Betty I. Welch; Diana Welch; Greg * Welch; Midland Risk Insurance * Company; Ronald W. Metcalf, * * Defendants. * ___________ Submitted: July 28, 1999 Filed: August 13, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. The appellant insurance companies appeal from the district court's imposition of sanctions. The appeal has been submitted on the briefs. Having considered the record and the parties' arguments, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Sharon Newsom's motion for sanctions. We also conclude an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer