finding that a university's offer of an opportunity for a candidate to re-apply for tenure was "not an 'unconditional offer' for purposes of mitigation of damages"
Summary of this case from Ernst v. City of Chi.No. 98-1358.
July 20, 1999.
E.D.Mich.
Affirmed.
finding that a university's offer of an opportunity for a candidate to re-apply for tenure was "not an 'unconditional offer' for purposes of mitigation of damages"
Summary of this case from Ernst v. City of Chi.concluding that, although 28 U.S.C. § 1651 "provides that the federal courts may issue all writs necessary to enforce the law . . . including writs in the nature of mandamus . . . no federal court—regardless of its geographical jurisdiction may issue a writ of mandamus to compel state officers to act . . . ."
Summary of this case from Chappell v. Ohio Supreme Courtconcluding that attorney's failure to notify a defendant of a Ohio Court of Appeals' decision, thereby preventing from filing a timely Rule 26(B) application, constitutes constitutionally ineffective counsel serving as cause to excuse the procedural default
Summary of this case from Lane v. Jacksonconcluding that attorney's failure to notify a defendant of an Ohio Court of Appeals' decision, thereby preventing from filing a timely Rule 26(B) application, constitutes constitutionally ineffective counsel serving as cause to excuse the procedural default
Summary of this case from Williams v. Hurleyaffirming dismissal under Michigan statute
Summary of this case from Booth v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.considering evidence of discrimination against other faculty members in assessing the reasonability of the plaintiff's rejection of an offer to re-apply for a tenure promotion
Summary of this case from Ernst v. City of Chi.stating broadly that “[n]ominally separate business entities will be considered a single employer when they comprise an integrated enterprise”
Summary of this case from Merritt v. Mountain Laurel Chalets, Inc.In Paris v. Turner, 187 F.3d 637, unpublished, 1999 WL 357815 (6th Cir. May 26, 1999), the Sixth Circuit held that petitioner established cause for his four-year delay in filing an application for reopening of the appeal pursuant to Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B) where appellate counsel waited four months before advising petitioner that his appeal had been denied, and the public defender then waited three years before filing a delayed appeal on petitioner's behalf.
Summary of this case from Palmer v. Eberlinapplying common knowledge defense under Act to state and federal tort claims against tobacco manufacturer
Summary of this case from Booth v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Full title:RADS, P.C. Oncology Professionals v. Mercy Memorial Hosp
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Date published: Jul 20, 1999
This Court has expanded the classes of potential plaintiffs to include assignees, and possibly subrogees, of…
Williams v. HurleyBecause [petitioner] has no constitutional right to counsel on his discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme…