Filed: Oct. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2732 _ William H. Viehweg, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Susan H. Mello, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee, * * Grace E. Fuentes; Lloyd J. Vasquez, Jr., * * Movants. * _ Submitted: October 7, 1999 Filed: October 18, 1999 _ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. William H. Viehweg appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant o
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2732 _ William H. Viehweg, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Susan H. Mello, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee, * * Grace E. Fuentes; Lloyd J. Vasquez, Jr., * * Movants. * _ Submitted: October 7, 1999 Filed: October 18, 1999 _ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. William H. Viehweg appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 98-2732
___________
William H. Viehweg, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Susan H. Mello, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee, *
*
Grace E. Fuentes; Lloyd J. Vasquez, Jr., *
*
Movants. *
___________
Submitted: October 7, 1999
Filed: October 18, 1999
___________
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
William H. Viehweg appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his diversity legal malpractice action against attorney Susan Mello. Mr.
1
The Honorable Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Viehweg alleged Ms. Mello breached her fiduciary duty and acted negligently when she
withdrew from representing him in an action against his former employer. Upon de
novo review, see Kunferman v. Ford Motor Co.,
112 F.3d 962, 965 (8th Cir. 1997), we
conclude summary judgment was proper. We believe an extended opinion is
unnecessary, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
We deny all pending motions on appeal.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-