Denise Chapman v. Ford Motor Company

489 F. App'x 999
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 23, 2012
Docket12-1114
StatusUnpublished

This text of 489 F. App'x 999 (Denise Chapman v. Ford Motor Company) 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
Denise Chapman v. Ford Motor Company, 489 F. App'x 999 (8th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Denise and Jonathan Chapman appeal following the district court’s 1 adverse rulings in their suit against Ford Motor Company. The action, removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction, purported to seek relief pursuant to Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 60(c) and (k) based on assertions that Ford Motor Company presented fraudulent evidence in an earlier case. The district court granted Ford Motor Company’s motion for summary judgment, and denied the Chapmans’ subsequent motions to alter or amend judgment, and for reconsideration. Following careful review, we find no error or abuse of discretion. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(c),(k); Stein v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 662 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir.2011) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168-69 (8th Cir.1988) (standard of review for post-judgment rulings).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny the parties’ pending motions.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

Related

Stein v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
662 F.3d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 F. App'x 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-chapman-v-ford-motor-company-ca8-2012.