David W. BLAKLEY, Jr., Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board of Directors of KCMSD; Bernard Taylor, Jr., Dr.; Phyllis Budeshym, Appellees.
No. 05-4002
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2007. Filed: Feb. 23, 2007.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hayley Elizabeth Hanson, Michael E. Norton, Blackwell & Sanders, argued, Kansas City, MO, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
David W. Blakley appeals the district court‘s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his discrimination and retaliation claims against the Kansas City Missouri School District and others. Upon a careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we affirm the district court‘s well-reasoned decision. See
The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. SAWMILL HYDRAULICS, INC., Defendant, Gary Eads, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-2980
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2007. Filed: Feb. 23, 2007.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Karl Kuckelman, Wallace & Saunders, Overland Park, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Gary Eads appeals the district court‘s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of The Cincinnati Insurance Company (TCC), holding the injuries Eads sustained while working on a log turner manufactured by Sawmill Hydraulics, Inc., were not covered by the terms of an insurance policy issued by TCC and covering Sawmill.
TCC argued Eads‘s injuries were subject to the policy‘s products-completed operations hazard exclusion. Eads argued a safety device could have been designed which would have prevented his injuries. According to him, if a safety feature could have been installed—even though one only existed in theory—his injuries were caused by “uninstalled equipment,” and such injuries were excepted from the products-completed operations hazard exclusion.
The district court held the exception to the exclusion relied upon by Eads only applied to equipment present at the site when the accident occurred. We agree. In this case, not only was the “uninstalled equipment” not present at the site, the equipment did not exist. Because an extended discussion would add nothing to the well-reasoned order of the district court, we affirm under
MEIDI CAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-3356
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2007. Decided: Feb. 23, 2007.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Andrew J. Lay, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, St. Louis, MO, Richard M. Evans, Marion E. Guyton, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Meidi Cao, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the Immigration Judge‘s (IJ) denial of petitioner‘s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction arises under