081288P.pdf   02/16/2010  American Prairie, etc.  v.  Tri-State Financial
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-1288
                          and No:  08-1394
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - contracts. For the court's earlier opinion in a related appeal
   see Am. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2009).
   District court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion
   asking the judge to disqualify and recuse; under South Dakota law, the
   parties did not form a binding contract/settlement agreement because
   there was never a meeting of the minds as to the parties to the agreement;
   the district court also erred in treating the alleged settlement agreement as
   independent from the bankruptcy, and the settlement was not an
   enforceable, binding contract; even if the bankruptcy court's approval
   was not required for settlement agreement made between debtors in
   bankruptcy and their creditors, this purported agreement would still be
   unenforceable because the purpose of the agreement had been frustrated
   by intervening circumstances.
  
081288P.pdf   03/24/2009  American Prairie, etc.  v.  Tri-State Financial
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-1288
                          and No:  08-1292
                          and No:  08-1394
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Settlements. Any issues raised by defendant TSF's appeal
   and NCC's cross-appeal are stayed by TSF's bankruptcy; issues raised by
   appellant Hoich can be considered as the automatic bankruptcy stay does
   not apply to him; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
   Hoich's motion for recusal and disqualification; district court erred in
   concluding Hoich was a guarantor of, or party to, the alleged settlement
   agreement between parties as the court abused its discretion in finding
   another man was Hoich's agent and had authority to bind him to the
   settlement; the court also abused its discretion when it took judicial
   notice of certain meeting minutes and portions of a book kept by Hoich.