Legal Opinion
Wright v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided September 30, 2002No. 2:02-cv-71311PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EDMUNDS, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Being fully advised in the premises, having read the pleadings, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
I. Facts
In 1996, Plaintiff Antoinette Wright applied for a position as an hourly worker with Defendant DaimlerChrysler. Resp. at 1. The application, which Ms. Wright signed, stated in relevant part:
8. In consideration of Chrysler’s review of my application, I agree that any claim or…
2Cases cited24 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Linda Jackson v. Quanex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. HarrimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harte-Hanks Direct Marketing/Baltimore, Inc. v. Varilease Technology Finance Group, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2004
- Lewis v. Harper HospitalDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2002
- Brown v. Cassens Transport Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010
- Logan v. CasinoDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018
- Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 2011