Legal Opinion
Smith v. Zeneca Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided May 5, 1993No. Civ. A. 92-667 MMSPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, Senior District Judge.
Defendant, ZENECA Inc., has moved to dismiss both counts of plaintiff Robert M. Smith’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D.I. 4. 1 The first count of plaintiffs complaint alleges that defendant discriminated against plaintiff because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 19-23, citing 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) and (2) (1988). Defendant urges the first count is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The second count of the complaint alleges that,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. BonjornoSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Emra Joseph Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Johnsrud v. CarterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Alfred St. Louis v. Texas Worker's Compensation Commission, Texas Worker's Compensation CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Central School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Anderson v. Unisys Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Steven I. v. Central Bucks School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Metsopulos v. RunyonDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.