Terra International v. Tommy Robinson, No. 14-1561 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Judgment. Order reviving a 2003 judgment and extending the judgment lien ten years is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1561 ___________________________ Terra International, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Tommy F. Robinson; Jeffrey W. Robinson; Greg T. Robinson; individually and as partners of Ag Pro Farm Partnership lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants Fred Chambers, individually and as partner of Ag Pro Farm Partnership lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: January 12, 2015 Filed: March 9, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this diversity case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), Tommy F. Robinson, Jeffrey W. Robinson, and Greg T. Robinson, individually and as partners of Ag Pro Farm Partnership (Robinsons), appeal an order of the district court1 reviving a 2003 judgment against them and extending the judgment lien ten years. The Robinsons primarily challenge the district court’s application of Arkansas law, arguing (1) they did not receive the “panoply of protections” required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-65-501, including notice and the opportunity to respond; (2) the request to revive the judgment was untimely; and (3) the district court therefore “had no authority to bind the parties.”2 Upon careful de novo review of the issues properly raised on appeal, see Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991) (standard of review), we see no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 We decline to consider the constitutional due process and procedural realparty-in-interest claims the Robinsons raised for the first time on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining we generally do not consider issues “not presented in the district court” and “advanced for the first time on appeal”); United HealthCare Corp. v. Am. Trade Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 1996) (concluding a defendant “waived his real party in interest defense” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) “by failing to raise it in a timely fashion” in the trial court). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
