Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sharon Holman v. Jim Branson, 98-2228 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 98-2228 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2228EA _ Sharon Holman, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Jim Branson, Individually, doing * Appeal from the United States business as Arkansas Reenactors * District Court for the Eastern Alliance; Billy Nations, Individually, * District of Arkansas. doing business as Terry's Texas * Rangers; Jim Jones, Individually, doing * [UNPUBLISHED] business as Terry's Texas Rangers; Mike * Bailey, individually and as agent for * Department of Parks an
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 98-2228EA _____________ Sharon Holman, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Jim Branson, Individually, doing * Appeal from the United States business as Arkansas Reenactors * District Court for the Eastern Alliance; Billy Nations, Individually, * District of Arkansas. doing business as Terry's Texas * Rangers; Jim Jones, Individually, doing * [UNPUBLISHED] business as Terry's Texas Rangers; Mike * Bailey, individually and as agent for * Department of Parks and Tourism, * State of Arkansas, * * Appellees. * _____________ Submitted: December 14, 1998 Filed: December 23, 1998 _____________ Before FAGG, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. _____________ PER CURIAM. Sharon Holman appeals the adverse orders of the district court granting summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law to the parties sued by Holman. We review the district court's rulings under well established standards. Having reviewed the record in the context of the parties' arguments, we conclude the record supports the district court's decisions. Because our review involves the application of settled principles of law in a fact intensive case and the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court, we believe an extensive discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose. We thus affirm the district court without further discussion. 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