Union Electric Co. v. James Devine

334 F. App'x 37
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 11, 2009
Docket07-3926, 08-1397
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 334 F. App'x 37 (Union Electric Co. v. James Devine) 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
Union Electric Co. v. James Devine, 334 F. App'x 37 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, James Devine challenges the district court’s 1 (1) order and judgment holding him in contempt and imposing sanctions for violating a 2001 consent decree which required him to bring four boat docks located on a cove of the Lake of the Ozarks in Camden County, Missouri, into compliance with permits issued by Union Electric Company (UE) (No. 07-3926), and (2) order awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses of $16,380.35 to UE (No. 08-1397).

Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding after three hearings and an inspection of the property in question that UE’s evidence established that Devine had violated specific provisions of the 2001 consent decree, which provided for enforcement through contempt proceedings. We thus find no abuse of discretion with regard to the district court’s judgment holding Devine in contempt and imposing sanctions, which were properly coercive and remedial rather than punitive. See Chaganti & Assoc., P.C. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1223 (8th Cir.2006) (district court’s imposition of civil contempt order and assessment of monetary sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion); Warnock v. Archer, 443 F.3d 954, 955 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (factual findings underlying civil contempt order are reviewed for clear error); Jake’s, Ltd. v. City of Coates, 356 F.3d 896, 901-902 (8th Cir.2004) (contempt sanctions are civil if they are coercive and remedial, and criminal if they are punitive).

We further find no abuse of discretion in the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, which was also provided for in the consent decree. See Ollis v. HearthStone Homes, Inc., 495 F.3d 570, 576-77 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm both the contempt judgment and the fee-award order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

Related

Little Tchefuncte River Ass'n v. Artesian Utility Co.
155 F. Supp. 3d 637 (E.D. Louisiana, 2015)
Union Electric Company v. James Devine
402 F. App'x 153 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
334 F. App'x 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-electric-co-v-james-devine-ca8-2009.