George Mitchell v. City of Minneapolis

Eighth Circuit

George Mitchell v. City of Minneapolis

707 F.2d 490, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27277

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 1983

Docket82-1969

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 707 F.2d 490 (George Mitchell v. City of Minneapolis) 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

George Mitchell v. City of Minneapolis, 707 F.2d 490, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27277 (8th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Mitchell brought this action to establish his right to employment as Executive Director of the Community Action Agency of the City of Minneapolis. He claimed that he had a contract with the Board of Directors of the Agency hiring him as its Executive Director, and that the City and its Council were interfering with his contractual rights. The complaint was based on two theories: (1) the law of Minnesota, including the common law of contracts and a resolution of the City Council of the City of Minneapolis, and (2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court 1 held for the plaintiff.

*491 We affirm. The District Court held (and there seems to be little question about it) that the City Council had by resolution delegated to the Agency’s Board of Directors the right to choose an Executive Director. It also held that the delegation was not a violation of the City Charter or of any state statute. The City earnestly asserts that the District Court erred in so holding, but on questions of state law we normally defer to the view taken by a district court sitting in the state in question. We hold that Judge McLaughlin permissibly interpreted the law of Minnesota. That state-law ground is adequate to support the judgment in Mitchell’s favor. We do not reach or decide any Fourteenth Amendment question.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Harry H. McLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

George Mitchell brought this action to establish his right to employment as Executive Director of the Community Action Agency of the City of Minneapolis. He claimed that he had a contract with the Board of Directors of the Agency hiring him as its Executive Director, and that the City and its Council were interfering with his contractual rights. The complaint was based on two theories: (1) the law of Minnesota, including the common law of contracts and a resolution of the City Council of the City of Minneapolis, and (2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court 1 held for the plaintiff.

*491 We affirm. The District Court held (and there seems to be little question about it) that the City Council had by resolution delegated to the Agency’s Board of Directors the right to choose an Executive Director. It also held that the delegation was not a violation of the City Charter or of any state statute. The City earnestly asserts that the District Court erred in so holding, but on questions of state law we normally defer to the view taken by a district court sitting in the state in question. We hold that Judge McLaughlin permissibly interpreted the law of Minnesota. That state-law ground is adequate to support the judgment in Mitchell’s favor. We do not reach or decide any Fourteenth Amendment question.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Harry H. McLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 F.2d 490, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-mitchell-v-city-of-minneapolis-ca8-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack