Jonathan Jones v. Duane Livingston Trucking, Inc, No. 17-2541 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Colloton, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - diversity. Summary judgment is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2541 ___________________________ Jonathan Jones; Christopher Maxwell lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Duane Livingston Trucking, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: May 21, 2018 Filed: May 24, 2018 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jonathan Jones and Christopher Maxwell appeal after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment in their diversity action against Duane Livingston Trucking, Inc. We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on appellants’ negligence and outrage claims. See Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips, 519 S.W.3d 291, 302 (Ark. 2017) (discussing negligence under Arkansas law); Kiersey v. Jeffrey, 253 S.W.3d 438, 441 (Ark. 2007) (discussing outrage under Arkansas law); see also Paine v. Jefferson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2010) (in diversity action, state law governs issues of substantive law); Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment). In addition, we note that appellants did not present any meaningful legal argument regarding their purported claim for destruction of property. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
