Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kyle Larson v. Rod Kesti, 99-1983 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-1983 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1983 _ Kyle Larson; School Service Employees * Union Local 284, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Rod Kesti; Kenneth Dragseth; Board * District Court for the District of Education, of Independent School * of Minnesota. District No. 273 (Edina); Idith Almog; * Frank Bennett; Ruth Gough; Suzanne * [UNPUBLISHED] Knelman; Phyllis Kohler; Eileen Supple, * individually and as members of the * Board of Education of In
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-1983 ___________ Kyle Larson; School Service Employees * Union Local 284, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Rod Kesti; Kenneth Dragseth; Board * District Court for the District of Education, of Independent School * of Minnesota. District No. 273 (Edina); Idith Almog; * Frank Bennett; Ruth Gough; Suzanne * [UNPUBLISHED] Knelman; Phyllis Kohler; Eileen Supple, * individually and as members of the * Board of Education of Independent * School District No. 273; Independent * School District No. 273, Edina, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: October 21, 1999 Filed: October 28, 1999 ___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Kyle Larson and School Service Employees Union Local 284 appeal the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Larson's employment-related civil rights action. Larson and his union contend that Larson's termination from his school bus driver position while he was covered by a collective bargaining agreement violated Larson's constitutionally protected property and liberty interests without due process of law. Having considered the record in the context of the appellants' contentions, we are satisfied that no error of law appears in the district court's ruling. Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court, we believe that an extended discussion about the district court's well-reasoned application of the controlling law in the framework of a case that is unique to these parties would serve no useful precedential purpose. We believe the district court is correct and the record supports the district court's ruling. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer