Abbott v. Farm Credit Bank

Eighth Circuit

Abbott v. Farm Credit Bank

953 F.2d 1097

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 953 F.2d 1097 (Abbott v. Farm Credit Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abbott v. Farm Credit Bank, 953 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants appeal the district court’s dismissal of their suit to force Farm Credit Bank of Omaha to comply with title I, section 101 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, 12 U.S.C. § 2162 (1988). The appellants’ arguments, however, are foreclosed by this court’s holdings in Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 909 F.2d 1181, 1183 (8th Cir.1990) (en banc), Euerle Farms v. Farm Credit Servs., 928 F.2d 274, 276 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 179, 116 L.Ed.2d 141 (1991), and Cupples Bros. v. Federal Land Bank, 951 F.2d 883, 886 (8th Cir.1991). See also Mendel v. Production Credit Ass’n, 862 F.2d 180, 181-82 (8th Cir.1988) (holding a private right of action does not lie for failures to perform duties owed under the Farm Credit Act and its 1985 amendments).

Although the appellants requested attorneys’ fees in the district court, the appellants failed to obtain a ruling on their request. “As a federal appellate court, we generally do not consider issues not decided by the district court.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir.1987). Having reviewed the record, we [1098]*1098decline to consider the attorneys’ fees claim for the first time on appeal. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellants appeal the district court’s dismissal of their suit to force Farm Credit Bank of Omaha to comply with title I, section 101 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, 12 U.S.C. § 2162 (1988). The appellants’ arguments, however, are foreclosed by this court’s holdings in Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 909 F.2d 1181, 1183 (8th Cir.1990) (en banc), Euerle Farms v. Farm Credit Servs., 928 F.2d 274, 276 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 179, 116 L.Ed.2d 141 (1991), and Cupples Bros. v. Federal Land Bank, 951 F.2d 883, 886 (8th Cir.1991). See also Mendel v. Production Credit Ass’n, 862 F.2d 180, 181-82 (8th Cir.1988) (holding a private right of action does not lie for failures to perform duties owed under the Farm Credit Act and its 1985 amendments).

Although the appellants requested attorneys’ fees in the district court, the appellants failed to obtain a ruling on their request. “As a federal appellate court, we generally do not consider issues not decided by the district court.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir.1987). Having reviewed the record, we [1098]*1098decline to consider the attorneys’ fees claim for the first time on appeal. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

953 F.2d 1097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbott-v-farm-credit-bank-ca8-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack