Legal Opinion
Constant v. Continental Telephone Co. of Illinois
District Court, C.D. Illinois
Decided August 29, 1990No. 89-4058PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MIHM, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion by the Defendants for summary judgment (# 32) which is brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court grants the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (# 32).
BACKGROUND
Constant grew up in Aledo, Illinois, and attended Western Illinois University in Ma-comb, Illinois. Constant was employed by Contel as an engineer from 1972 until his employment ended in June, 1987. Constant was born on December 16,1945, and, at the time of his termination, he was 41 years of age.
Constant received many awards during his…
2Cases cited29 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
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hampton v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
- Frank Lumpkin v. Envirodyne Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- Eugene Pierce v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., D/B/A Santa Fe Railroad Co., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Spradling v. BlackburnDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1996
- Puentes v. United Parcel Service Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.