TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Darlene Baker v. Detroit Riverview Hospital and Detroit MacOmb Hospital Corporation

Baker v. Detroit Riverview Hosp. & Detroit MacOmb Hosp. Corp., 57 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 1, 1995
Docket
No. 93-2426
Citations
57 F.3d 1069154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 21281995 WL 3295661995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20939

Opinion

57 F.3d 1069 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Darlene BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL and Detroit Macomb Hospital Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-2426.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 1, 1995.

Before: BROWN, KENNEDY and Norris; Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

1

Plaintiff, Darlene Baker, appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants in her lawsuit which contended that she was wrongfully discharged by her employer.

2

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants.

3

As the reasons why judgment should be entered for defendants have been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning set out by the district court in its discussion of the union's duty of fair representation, found in its memorandum opinion and order dated October 5, 1993. In affirming, we do not rely upon the district court's determination that the prior NLRB decision had a preclusive effect upon the subsequent proceedings.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list