Mid-American Cellular Telephone Co. v. Goodwin

Eighth Circuit

Mid-American Cellular Telephone Co. v. Goodwin

16 F.3d 1228, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 8603, 1994 WL 17094

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

Docket93-2260

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 1228 (Mid-American Cellular Telephone Co. v. Goodwin) 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

Mid-American Cellular Telephone Co. v. Goodwin, 16 F.3d 1228, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 8603, 1994 WL 17094 (8th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

16 F.3d 1228
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.

MID-AMERICAN CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Barclay Robert GOODWIN, Jr.; Stephen L. Johnson; Emmett M.
Capper; D. C. Taylor; Tina M. Green; B & R
Communications, c/o Richard N. Brown; Apollo
Communications; Channel Communication, c/o Ted and Delores
Landkammer; Richard N. Brown; Charles H. Rosenquist; Ted
Landkammer; Deloris Landkammer; Lloyd Chelli; Mark
Landkammer, Mr. & Mrs.; Greg Weber, Mr. & Mrs.; Philip
Newell, Mr. & Mrs.; Pat De Lambert; Michael Black; Janet
Kiely; Kenneth Dyche, Mr. & Mrs.; Carol J. Goodwin; Pete
Manriquez; Edna Manriquez; Roger Flanders; Thomas S.
Tatrai; Vikram Kowshik; Robert Scott; Elainea Scott;
Maurice Barron; Susan Porter Bass; Brian D. Brown; Dennis
F. Matthews; Rebecca Wong; Richard W. Wygant; T. D.
Chelli, Appellees.

No. 93-2260.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 10, 1994.
Filed: January 25, 1994.

Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On October 6, 1992, Mid-American Cellular Telephone Company won a judgment against appellees on its claims for breach of contract and conversion, and also on appellees' counterclaim for breach of contract. In its order of March 23, 1993, the District Court1 denied Mid-American's motion to amend the judgment to award attorney fees and prejudgment interest. The court concluded that the contract's indemnification provision did not operate in this case to entitle Mid-American to attorney fees. The court further found that the damages awarded Mid-American were neither liquidated nor readily ascertainable without resolution of disputed facts, and so Mid-American was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the damages award. Mid-American appeals.

We affirm without further opinion based upon the well-reasoned order of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

The Honorable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Western Missouri

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

16 F.3d 1228
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.

MID-AMERICAN CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Barclay Robert GOODWIN, Jr.; Stephen L. Johnson; Emmett M.
Capper; D. C. Taylor; Tina M. Green; B & R
Communications, c/o Richard N. Brown; Apollo
Communications; Channel Communication, c/o Ted and Delores
Landkammer; Richard N. Brown; Charles H. Rosenquist; Ted
Landkammer; Deloris Landkammer; Lloyd Chelli; Mark
Landkammer, Mr. & Mrs.; Greg Weber, Mr. & Mrs.; Philip
Newell, Mr. & Mrs.; Pat De Lambert; Michael Black; Janet
Kiely; Kenneth Dyche, Mr. & Mrs.; Carol J. Goodwin; Pete
Manriquez; Edna Manriquez; Roger Flanders; Thomas S.
Tatrai; Vikram Kowshik; Robert Scott; Elainea Scott;
Maurice Barron; Susan Porter Bass; Brian D. Brown; Dennis
F. Matthews; Rebecca Wong; Richard W. Wygant; T. D.
Chelli, Appellees.

No. 93-2260.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 10, 1994.
Filed: January 25, 1994.

Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On October 6, 1992, Mid-American Cellular Telephone Company won a judgment against appellees on its claims for breach of contract and conversion, and also on appellees' counterclaim for breach of contract. In its order of March 23, 1993, the District Court1 denied Mid-American's motion to amend the judgment to award attorney fees and prejudgment interest. The court concluded that the contract's indemnification provision did not operate in this case to entitle Mid-American to attorney fees. The court further found that the damages awarded Mid-American were neither liquidated nor readily ascertainable without resolution of disputed facts, and so Mid-American was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the damages award. Mid-American appeals.

We affirm without further opinion based upon the well-reasoned order of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

The Honorable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Western Missouri

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F.3d 1228, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 8603, 1994 WL 17094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-american-cellular-telephone-co-v-goodwin-ca8-1994.