Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Riley J. Wilson v. Career Education Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided August 30, 2013No. 12-2383Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHamilton, Circuit Judge

I agree with my colleagues that the CEC supplemental compensation plan was an enforceable contract and that there is not currently any need to pursue a claim of unjust enrichment. I agree with Judge Darrow that plaintiff Wilson is entitled to pursue his claim for bad faith breach of the contract with CEC, both in his own right and potentially on behalf of a plaintiff class. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, however, on Wilson’s straight breach of contract claim that does not require proof of subjective bad faith. I dissent from the affirmance of the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6)…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
  3. Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Martindell v. Lake Shore National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1958
  5. James S. Jordan, Cross-Appellee v. Duff and Phelps, Inc., Claire v. Hansen, and Francis E. Jeffries, Defendants- Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API