Filed: Jul. 28, 2009
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2017
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1291 _ James Wright Porter, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * Nathan Johnson; Robert D. Johnson; * [UNPUBLISHED] Northland Auto Center, Inc., * * Appellants. * _ Submitted: July 23, 2009 Filed: July 28, 2009 _ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Nathan Johnson, Robert Johnson, and Northland Auto Center appeal from an order of the District
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1291 _ James Wright Porter, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * Nathan Johnson; Robert D. Johnson; * [UNPUBLISHED] Northland Auto Center, Inc., * * Appellants. * _ Submitted: July 23, 2009 Filed: July 28, 2009 _ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Nathan Johnson, Robert Johnson, and Northland Auto Center appeal from an order of the District C..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1291
___________
James Wright Porter, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * District of South Dakota.
*
Nathan Johnson; Robert D. Johnson; * [UNPUBLISHED]
Northland Auto Center, Inc., *
*
Appellants. *
___________
Submitted: July 23, 2009
Filed: July 28, 2009
___________
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Nathan Johnson, Robert Johnson, and Northland Auto Center appeal from an
order of the District Court1 that reversed the Bankruptcy Court's grant of summary
judgment in their favor. Upon careful de novo review, see Contemporary Indus. Corp.
v. Frost,
564 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), we conclude that the
District Court properly reversed the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated
1
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
by the court in its opinion and that the arguments raised in appellants’ brief provide
no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-