Legal Opinion
Seamon v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 28, 1983No. Civ. A. 83-1801PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WEBER, District Judge.
The unfortunate and unnecessary procedural tangle that this case has become is about to meet an inglorious end. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment in this action. Plaintiffs have since filed their second motion to remand. For the reasons stated below, we will deny plaintiffs’ latest motion to remand and grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant Bell.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Eileen Seamon has alleged in this suit that she was wrongfully forced to transfer from one Bell office to another more distant. Her original position was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Rosado v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Bill J. Gambocz v. Anthony M. YelencsicsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Williamson v. Columbia Gas & Electric Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jaffree v. WallaceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- Jaffree v. WallaceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company, LtdCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Worman v. CarverWyoming Supreme Court · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.