Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brandon Kittle-Aikeley v. Donald Claycomb

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided December 7, 2015No. 13-3264, 14-1145Published

1DissentBye, Circuit Judge

I would affirm the district court’s order granting the Appellees (hereinafter “students”) a permanent injunction from Appellants’ (hereinafter “Linn State”) suspi-cionless drug-testing policy for all but five of Linn State’s academic programs because the district court’s program-by-program analysis is correct and Linn State failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating a special need for drug testing. Based on the evidence presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. I therefore respectfully dissent.

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion by conducting a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Vernonia School District 47J v. ActonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartySupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  3. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Chandler v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. Ferguson v. City of CharlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

6 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