Clevenger v. Minnesota Department of Corrections

Eighth Circuit

Clevenger v. Minnesota Department of Corrections

180 F.3d 991, 1999 WL 552598

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2767

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 F.3d 991 (Clevenger v. Minnesota Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clevenger v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 180 F.3d 991, 1999 WL 552598 (8th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this employment-discrimination case, the plaintiff, Allan Clevenger, asserts that the defendants, including the Minnesota Department of Corrections, his former employer, discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability. Plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated his right to free speech and to equal protection of the laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court¹ entered summary judgment for defendants, explaining its reasons in a full opin[992]*992ion delivered from the bench at the conclusion of oral argument on the motion.

Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral argument ourselves, we hold that the District Court did not err. Its opinion fully explains the appropriate result with respect to each of plaintiffs claims. We add only that we commend the District Court for delivering its opinion orally from the bench. This practice has the advantage of allowing the parties to know the result of a case without delay, and of enabling the Court to decide the case when the matter is still fresh in mind. Substantially for the reasons given in the District Court’s opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this employment-discrimination case, the plaintiff, Allan Clevenger, asserts that the defendants, including the Minnesota Department of Corrections, his former employer, discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability. Plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated his right to free speech and to equal protection of the laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court¹ entered summary judgment for defendants, explaining its reasons in a full opin[992]*992ion delivered from the bench at the conclusion of oral argument on the motion.

Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral argument ourselves, we hold that the District Court did not err. Its opinion fully explains the appropriate result with respect to each of plaintiffs claims. We add only that we commend the District Court for delivering its opinion orally from the bench. This practice has the advantage of allowing the parties to know the result of a case without delay, and of enabling the Court to decide the case when the matter is still fresh in mind. Substantially for the reasons given in the District Court’s opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F.3d 991, 1999 WL 552598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clevenger-v-minnesota-department-of-corrections-ca8-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack