Legal Opinion

Schumacher v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided January 29, 2008No. 07-1586, 07-1588, 07-1590PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Swift Beef Company, and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (collectively the “Packers”) appeal the district court’s judgment entered after a jury trial in a class action brought under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA). The Packers argue, inter alia, that the district court improperly instructed the jury that the Packers could be liable for violating § 202(e) of the PSA even if they acted unintentionally. 1 Because we hold that a showing of intent is required under § 202(e), we reverse the district court’s judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Stafford v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Bowles v. WeinerDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1947

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Adam and Eve Jonesboro, LLC v. Harold PerrinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019
  2. City of Jefferson City, Mo. v. Cingular WirelessCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
  3. United States v. Midwest Neurosurgeons, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
  4. Marino v. Seeley (In Re Marino)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
  5. Manty v. Johnson (In re Johnson)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit · 2014

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API