Yancey v. City of St. Louis

Eighth Circuit

Yancey v. City of St. Louis

48 F. App'x 228

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2002

DocketNo. 01-3069; No. 01-3069

StatusPublished

This text of 48 F. App'x 228 (Yancey v. City of St. Louis) 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

Yancey v. City of St. Louis, 48 F. App'x 228 (8th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[229]*229[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Marie Yancey brought suit against defendants on several legal theories, alleging discrimination arising from her employment with the City of St. Louis. Defendants (with the exception of Michael Donate, who prevailed at trial) appeal the judgment entered by the District Court² on a jury verdict in Yancey’s favor. Yancey cross-appeals the denial of her motions for injunctive relief, promotion, front-pay, prejudgment interest, and supplemental attorney fees and costs. We have eonsidered the record in light of the arguments of both parties. Finding no reversible error, and concluding that an opinion in this fact-intensive case would lack significant precedential value, we summarily affirm the District Court in all respects. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

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

[229]*229[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Marie Yancey brought suit against defendants on several legal theories, alleging discrimination arising from her employment with the City of St. Louis. Defendants (with the exception of Michael Donate, who prevailed at trial) appeal the judgment entered by the District Court² on a jury verdict in Yancey’s favor. Yancey cross-appeals the denial of her motions for injunctive relief, promotion, front-pay, prejudgment interest, and supplemental attorney fees and costs. We have eonsidered the record in light of the arguments of both parties. Finding no reversible error, and concluding that an opinion in this fact-intensive case would lack significant precedential value, we summarily affirm the District Court in all respects. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 F. App'x 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yancey-v-city-of-st-louis-ca8-2002.