U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1983

George Mitchell v. City of Minneapolis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided May 27, 1983 · Ross, Arnold, Gibson

707 F.2d 490; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27277 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Peter W. Brown, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee., Robert J. Alfton, City Atty. by Jerome F. Fitzgerald, Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant City of Minneapolis.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Wilfred H. VANCE, Appellee, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Appellant (4th Cir. 1983)
Chemical Bank v. Sigrist (In re Sigrist) (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York 1994)
R.W. Murray, Company v. Shatterproof Glass Corporation (8th Cir. 1985)
R.W. Murray, Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp. (8th Cir. 1985)
John T. Tharalson, and Cross v. Pfizer Genetics, Inc., a Corporation, and Cross (8th Cir. 1984)
In re Sepco, Inc., Debtor. United States of America, Farmers Home Administration, and Valley State Bank v. Arlon Industries, Inc. (8th Cir. 1984)
Executive Financial Services, Inc. v. Robert M. Garrison (8th Cir. 1983)
Executive Financial Services, Inc. v. Garrison (8th Cir. 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.