Legal Opinion
Hijeck v. United Technologies Corp.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided August 25, 1998No. 396CV1171(JBA), 396CV1605(JBA), 396CV1928(JBA), 396CV2116(JBA), 396CV2117(JBA) and 396CV2118(JBA)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ARTERTON, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, Walter Hijeck, Helen Tino, Gordon B. Tiziani, John K. Aldrich, Frank W. Gracewski, and John J. McManus are em ployees who retired from United Technologies Corporation’s (“UTC”) Hamilton Standard and Pratt & Whitney divisions between 1990 and 1991. In their complaints, which allege identical causes of action based on slightly different facts, plaintiffs allege that they chose to retire in reliance on misrepresentations by defendant that no enhancement of employee benefits would be offered to…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Carol A. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Limited Partnership, Doing Business as Prudential Relocation ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Boardwalk Reg. Corp. v. Casino Control Comm.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
- McMunn v. Pirelli Tire, LLC.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
- Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer PlanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015