Filed: Nov. 01, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-4059 _ Katherine B. Warren, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Champion Enterprises, Inc.; Champion * Eastern District of Missouri. Home Builders Company, doing * business as Champion Homes of * [UNPUBLISHED] Tennessee, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: October 31, 2006 Filed: November 1, 2006 _ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Katherine B. Warren appeals from the d
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-4059 _ Katherine B. Warren, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Champion Enterprises, Inc.; Champion * Eastern District of Missouri. Home Builders Company, doing * business as Champion Homes of * [UNPUBLISHED] Tennessee, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: October 31, 2006 Filed: November 1, 2006 _ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Katherine B. Warren appeals from the di..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-4059
___________
Katherine B. Warren, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Champion Enterprises, Inc.; Champion * Eastern District of Missouri.
Home Builders Company, doing *
business as Champion Homes of * [UNPUBLISHED]
Tennessee, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: October 31, 2006
Filed: November 1, 2006
___________
Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Katherine B. Warren appeals from the district court’s1 entry of summary
judgment in favor of defendants in her personal injury action. The district court held
that Warren failed to raise genuine issues of material fact supporting her contention
that the “unsound mind” provision of Tennessee’s tolling statute excused her failure
1
The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
to file within the one-year statute of limitations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106.
Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman,
289 F.3d
517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002), we find the district court’s analysis to be correct, thorough,
and well-reasoned. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-