Filed: Apr. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2588 _ The Omaha Indemnity Company, a * Wisconsin corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Frank B. Hall Insurance Brokers, Inc., a * District Court for the District New York Corporation; * of Nebraska. * Defendant-Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Prometheus Funding Corporation, a * Delaware corporation, * * Defendant. * _ Submitted: April 22, 1999 Filed: April 28, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN,* Chief Judge,
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2588 _ The Omaha Indemnity Company, a * Wisconsin corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Frank B. Hall Insurance Brokers, Inc., a * District Court for the District New York Corporation; * of Nebraska. * Defendant-Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Prometheus Funding Corporation, a * Delaware corporation, * * Defendant. * _ Submitted: April 22, 1999 Filed: April 28, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN,* Chief Judge, R..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-2588 ___________ The Omaha Indemnity Company, a * Wisconsin corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Frank B. Hall Insurance Brokers, Inc., a * District Court for the District New York Corporation; * of Nebraska. * Defendant-Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Prometheus Funding Corporation, a * Delaware corporation, * * Defendant. * ___________ Submitted: April 22, 1999 Filed: April 28, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN,* Chief Judge, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. * The Honorable Pasco M. Bowman stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the end of the day on April 23, 1999. He has been succeeded by the Honorable Roger L. Wollman. Frank B. Hall Insurance Brokers, Inc. appeals from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law in The Omaha Indemnity Company's indemnification action. We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law under a well- established standard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de novo questions of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied the controlling state law and the record supports the district court's ruling. We also conclude a comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack precedential value. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-