157 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 1998), 98-1323, Martin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

Docket Nº:98-1323EM.
Citation:157 F.3d 580
Party Name:G. Elvena MARTIN; Coyita Thomas; Judith A. Corwin, Appellants, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; American Family Life Insurance Company; American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Appellees.
Case Date:October 01, 1998
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 580

157 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 1998)

G. Elvena MARTIN; Coyita Thomas; Judith A. Corwin, Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; American Family

Life Insurance Company; American Standard

Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Appellees.

No. 98-1323EM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

October 1, 1998

Submitted Sept. 24, 1998.

Page 581

John J. Carey, St. Louis, MO, argued (Joseph P. Danis, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for Appellant.

Michael F. Harris, Chesterfield, MO, argued (James M. Paul, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for Appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

G. Elvena Martin, Coyita Thomas, and Judith A. Corwin were independent insurance agents in Missouri for American Family Mutual Insurance Company, American Family Life Insurance Company, and American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin (collectively American Family). After American Family terminated their agencies, the agents brought this lawsuit asserting various claims. In 1997 the district court dismissed the agents' wrongful discharge, tortious interference, and conversion claims. A year later, in 1998, the district court granted summary judgment to American Family on the agents' remaining claims. The agents filed a timely notice of appeal stating they were appealing the 1998 summary judgment order. After the time for appeal expired, the agents submitted an appeal information form stating they were also appealing the 1997 dismissal order.

Initially, American Family contends we lack jurisdiction to consider the agents' appeal of the district court's 1997 dismissal order. The agents contend we have jurisdiction to consider the dismissed claims because the agents listed the 1997 dismissal as an issue on their appeal information form. See 8th Cir. R. 3B (requiring submission of appeal information form for administrative purposes along with notice of appeal).

To vest us with jurisdiction over an appeal, the appellant must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992). Rule 3 requires appellants to file a notice of appeal that "designate[s] the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from" within thirty days after the district court enters the judgment or order. Fed. R.App. P. 3(c); see id. R. 3(a); id. R. 4(a)(1). Because we...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP