Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Crawford v. Kaiser
Crawford v. Kaiser, 133 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 1998)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1998-02-04
- Topic
- bankruptcy
133 F.3d 921 NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well. Charles CRAWFORD, Individually & on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Teresa KAISER, Individually & as Director of the Missouri Division of Child Support Enforcement, Appellee. No. 97-2363. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Crawford v. Kaiser. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Charles CRAWFORD, Individually & on behalf of others
similarly situated, Appellant,
v.
Teresa KAISER, Individually & as Director of the Missouri
Division of Child Support Enforcement, Appellee.
No. 97-2363.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 1998.
Filed Feb. 4, 1998.
Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and JONES,1 District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Charles Crawford appeals the order of the District Court2 granting summary judgment for the defendant in Crawford's civil rights action, which challenged an administrative modification of Crawford's child-support obligation. In his complaint, Crawford asserted claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and federal statutes and regulations. Crawford also seeks review of an order of the District Court denying him leave to amend his complaint.
Having reviewed the case, we find neither any error of law nor abuse of discretion in the challenged rulings. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.