Legal Opinion
Watson v. Amedco Steel, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided July 11, 1994No. 92-3947PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROVNER, Circuit Judge.
After a five-day trial, a jury found in favor of defendant Amedeo Steel, Inc. (“Amedeo”) on Richard Watson’s claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. In this appeal, Watson challenges neither the jury’s verdict nor the sufficiency of the evidence supporting it. He focuses instead on the district court’s pretrial denial of his motion for summary judgment. Watson maintains that if the district court had correctly interpreted our precedents, it would have granted summary judgment in his favor. Because we conclude that Watson cannot…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- 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
- Sandra L. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Houskins v. SheahanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- General Signal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Bennett v. PippinCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- National Union Fire Insurance v. L.E. Myers Co. GroupDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Soo Line Railroad Company, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.