Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Heart of America v. MO Dept. of Agricul., 98-2990 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 98-2990 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2990 _ Heart of America Grain Inspection * Service, Inc.; Thomas J. Clatanoff; * Jack L. Covey; Stephen E. Plummer; * Monty M. Uptegrove, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Missouri Department of Agriculture; * Stephen Bell; Tommy D. Hopkins, * * Appellees. * Appeal from the United States _ * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. State of Missouri, ex rel John L. * Saunders, Director, Missouri * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of A
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-2990 ___________ Heart of America Grain Inspection * Service, Inc.; Thomas J. Clatanoff; * Jack L. Covey; Stephen E. Plummer; * Monty M. Uptegrove, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Missouri Department of Agriculture; * Stephen Bell; Tommy D. Hopkins, * * Appellees. * Appeal from the United States ____________________ * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. State of Missouri, ex rel John L. * Saunders, Director, Missouri * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Agriculture, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Heart of America Grain Inspection * Service, Inc.; Thomas J. Clatanoff; * Stephen E. Plummer; Jack L. Covey; * Monty M. Uptegrove, * * Appellants. * ___________ Submitted: July 28, 1999 Filed: August 13, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Heart of America Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s (HOA) appeal has been submitted on the briefs. This court entered an order on January 8, 1998, denying HOA's request for attorneys' fees for "lack [of] authority to award fees in this matter." Having filed a parallel application for fees with the district court, HOA now appeals the district court's ruling rejecting HOA's application on state law grounds. Based on our de novo review of the state law questions, we reject HOA's contentions. Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court, we conclude an extended discussion about the district court's application of the controlling state law would serve no useful precedential purpose. We believe the district court is correct and thus affirm 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