Legal Opinion
Havelick v. Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 14, 1978No. 76 Civ. 1537PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PIERCE, District Judge.
OPINION and ORDER
At the close of plaintiff’s case in this non-jury action, defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, pursuant to Rule 41(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) Fed.R.Civ.P.
Findings of Fact
This action is brought by plaintiff Raymond J. Havelick, pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. (“the Age Act”). Plaintiff claims that the termination of his employment with the defendant Julius Wile…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thor C. LAUGESEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
- Thomas Polk v. Ford Motor Company, Ethel Lee Marshall, Guardian v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
- Monroe v. Penn-Dixie Cement CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1971
- Bishop v. Jelleff AssociatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1974
- Taylor v. Safeway Stores, IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wilbur L. KEPHART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INSTITUTE OF GAS TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
- Saenger v. Montefiore Medical CenterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Andrew P. Hebert v. The Mohawk Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Robert G. TICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAMPERT YARDS, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Parcinski v. Outlet Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.