Legal Opinion
Arthur D. OTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided June 4, 1979No. 77-3118PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENGEL, Circuit Judge.
This case, arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (1976), as amended by Pub.L.No. 95-256, 92 Stat. 189 (1978), is once more before us following an earlier remand by our court. In Ott v. Midland-Ross Corp., 523 F.2d 1367 (6th Cir. 1975), we reinstated Ott’s complaint after the district court had ordered it dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. The underlying facts in Ott I remain applicable here:
Count I of the complaint alleged that on January 4, 1971, when Ott was age 60, his employer, Midland-Ross Corporation, willfully…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Lorillard v. PonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Southern Pacific Co. v. BogertSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- Joseph F. Cada v. Baxter Healthcare CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- William Butler Smith v. Leman HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- John Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin and Aurora Health Care, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Rita Patricia Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- Naton v. Bank of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.