Sophia Shore v. Fed. Express Corp., 875 F.2d 867 (6th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Sophia Shore v. Fed. Express Corp., 875 F.2d 867 (6th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Baker v. Lyon (In Re ClassicStar, LLC) (kyed, 2011-08-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Baker v. Lyon (In Re ClassicStar, LLC)
E.D. Ky. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Saleem v. Toombs, 875 F.2d 867 (6th Cir.1989) (“An appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction.” This Court cannot waive compliance with the time limits set for the filing of appeals for a timely appeal is a mandatory, jurisdictional prerequisite by which all parties and this Court must abide.) See Ultimate Appliance CC v. Kirby Co., 601 F.3d 414, 415 (6th Cir.2010) (citing Budinich, 486 U.S. at 203 , 108 S.Ct. 1717 ; Feltner v. Lamar Adver. of Tenn., Inc., 200 Fed.Appx. 419, 422 (6th Cir.2006); In re Sulzer Orthopedics & Knee Prosthesis …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sophia Shore
v.
Federal Express Corp.
88-5753.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 11, 1989.
875 F.2d 867
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished

875 F.2d 867

49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1640

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Sophia SHORE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-5753.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 11, 1989.

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE E. WOODS, District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal is before us upon the contention by defendant, Federal Express Corp., that the district court erred in its determination of the issue of front pay, upon remand from this court.

2

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we are unable to say that the district court misapprehended its duty upon remand or that it erred in determining the issue of front pay. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court, entered on June 9, 1988, is affirmed, upon the reasoning set forth in its "Further Findings and Conclusions on Remand," dated August 28, 1986.

*

The Honorable George E. Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation