Rupinsky v. Miller Brewing Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COHILL, Chief Judge.
This case is before us on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The basis of the motion is that Plaintiff has no cause of action against Defendant arising out of his termination because he was an at-will employee, and, that consequently, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant for which relief can be granted. After careful consideration of the briefs filed and the relevant law, we will grant Defendant's motion.
Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff, George Rupinsky, is a citizen of Ohio. Defendant, Miller Brewing Co., a Wisconsin corporation with…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1989
- Harris v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- House v. Cannon Mills Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1988
- Robert Guy v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987
- Gordon's Jewelry Co. of New Jersey v. Goldstein (In Re Goldstein)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.