Brown v. La.-Pac. Corp.

19 Citing cases

  1. Kuecker Logistics Grp. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co.

    8:20CV307 (D. Neb. Nov. 27, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    . This limitation means that “[a] court of appeals ‘will typically not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration [pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)] in the district court.'” Brown v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1156 (2015)). Nor will a district court.

  2. Nielson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

    8:23CV21 (D. Neb. Sep. 26, 2024)

    This limitation means that “[a] court of appeals ‘will typically not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration [pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)] in the district court.'” Brown v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1156 (2015)). Nor will a district court.

  3. Hastings v. SmartMatch Ins. Agency

    4:22-cv-00228-LPR (E.D. Ark. Sep. 1, 2022)

    . Brown v. La.-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 345 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Clark v. McDaniel, 546 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1996) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 533 (1977))). Brown was interpreting Iowa common-law fraud.

  4. Eggs v. Rembrandt Enters., Inc.

    360 F. Supp. 3d 817 (S.D. Ind. 2018)   Cited 3 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Rexing I

    Several cases decided by federal courts applying or relying upon Iowa law have held that contractual remedies failed of their essential purpose where a seller provided nonconforming goods with "readily apparent" defects and where the "contractual limitations of remedies did not contemplate long-term use." Brown v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp. , 820 F.3d 339, 351 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (collecting authorities). In Select Pork , for instance, the court held that a limitation on consequential damages failed of its essential purpose because the underlying goods—"highly-touted special pigs"—were never delivered and were instead substituted with common diseased pigs. 640 F.2d at 150.

  5. Moore v. United States

    No. 23-2251 (8th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024)

    Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 847 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2017), quoting Cole v. UAW, 533 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir. 2008). See Brown v. La.-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348 (8th Cir. 2016), quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass 'n v. Verizon Commc 'ns, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014) (this court "will typically not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration in the district court"). A party may not "assert arguments that were not presented to the district court in opposing summary judgment in an appeal contesting an adverse grant of summary judgment." Id.

  6. Miller v. Kent Nutrition Grp.

    Case No. 18-3813 (6th Cir. Sep. 4, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The parties disagree over the statutory elements, but the district court focused on only one, causation, which that court found to be "naturally read" from the words "as the result of" appearing in the statute. R. 73, PageID 3509 (quoting Brown v. La.-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348-49 (8th Cir. 2016)). The district court explained that Iowa courts use a but-for test of causality that has a negative element: "[i]f the plaintiff would have suffered the same harm had the defendant not acted negligently, the defendant's conduct is not a cause in fact of the harm."

  7. Ward v. Kramer Sch. Art Loft Ltd.

    No. 15-3113 (8th Cir. Jul. 14, 2016)

    As to the district court's determination that some claims against certain parties were barred because Ms. Ward had not raised them as compulsory counterclaims in a prior unlawful-detainer action against her in state court, we agree with the district court's well-reasoned analysis of those claims.See Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 820 F.3d 338, 344 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); see also Teddler v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc., 739 F.3d 1104, 1111 (8th Cir. 2014) (remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel in civil case is suit against attorney for malpractice). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

  8. Nat'l Indem. Co. v. IRB Brasil Re

    8:23-CV-74 (D. Neb. Apr. 9, 2024)

    This limitation means that “[a] court of appeals ‘will typically not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration [pursuant to Rule 60(b)] in the district court.'” Brown v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1156 (2015)).

  9. Argueta v. Jaddou

    4:23-CV-3002 (D. Neb. Feb. 15, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    . This limitation means that “[a] court of appeals ‘will typically not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration [pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)] in the district court.'” Brown v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1156 (2015)). Nor will a district court.

  10. Palmer v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

    8:23-CV-0252 (D. Neb. Jan. 3, 2024)

    Brown v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 820 F.3d 339, 348 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1156 (2015))