SANDRA SADLAK v. THE SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding a writ of mandamus is not appropriate to assert timeliness where the MCHR has issued a right to sue letter more than 180 days after the plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the MCHR
• expressing the rule in the context of reviewing the denial of a writ of mandamus
• expressly limiting Farrow to narrow circumstances when right to sue letters were issued by the MCHR before the 180 days and timeliness was being challenged
• “Parties should not expect unending tolerance from the appellate courts for such failures to follow Rule 94.04.”
• Court reviewed de novo legal question of whether statute permitted the circuit court to direct the MCHR to continue to process a complaint once the MCHR has issued a right-to-sue letter after 180 days had passed
• “the MCHR ha[s] no statutory authority to make any findings of fact related to the complaints, implicitly or otherwise . . .” when 180 days expires with the MCHR and a right to sue letter is requested

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).