Legal Opinion
Kohmescher v. Kroger Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 21, 1991No. 90-993PublishedCited by 115 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
In his complaint before the court of common pleas, plaintiff alleged that Kroger forced him to retire without just cause and that Kroger discriminated against him on account of his age (sixty years) in violation of R.C. 4101.17.1 The issue presented for our determination is whether summary *503judgment was properly granted in favor of Kroger and against plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, we answer such inquiry in the negative, and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals below and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
A clear reading of R.C. 4101.17…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. AikensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. ThurstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by115 opinions
- Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A.Ohio Supreme Court · 2004
- Weiper v. W.A. Hill & AssociatesOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Byrnes v. LCI Communication Holdings Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Neal v. Hamilton CountyOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.