Victoria Haynes v. Jack Wagoner, III, No. 17-2320 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Legal malpractice. The district court did not err in determining the action was time-barred, and the dismissal of the action is affirmed without further comment. [ June 01, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2320 ___________________________ Victoria L. Haynes lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Jack Wagoner, III; Wagoner Law Firm, P.A. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________ Submitted: May 30, 2018 Filed: June 4, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Victoria L. Haynes appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her diversity legal malpractice action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Upon de novo 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. review, see Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. FDIC, 708 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2013) standard of review for dismissal based on failure to state claim); Sloan v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for district court’s application of state law in diversity case), we agree that the action is timebarred. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
