Legal Opinion

Kesselring v. United Technologies Corp.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided January 7, 1991No. C2-89-622PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

GRAHAM, District Judge.

This matter is before the court for a decision on the motion of defendant United Technologies Corporation for summary judgment. In his response to the motion, plaintiff Kesselring has conceded that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Count Two of the complaint, a state age discrimination claim under Ohio Revised Code § 4101.17, and on Count IY, a state law breach of contract claim. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on those claims is hereby granted. Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Count I, a claim of age…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Libront v. Columbus McKinnon Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1993
  2. Windover v. Sprague TechnologiesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1993
  3. Godfredson v. Hess & Clark, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998
  4. Muir v. CHRYSLER LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API