Legal Opinion

Small v. Chemlawn Corp.

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided April 11, 1984No. G82-132 CAPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

HILLMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Freddie Cox and Richard Small were employed as lawn care specialists by defendant ChemLawn Corporation. Plaintiff Floyd R. Mann was also employed by defendant ChemLawn as manager of the company’s Lansing office. Mann was the immediate supervisor of Small and Cox. On March 23, 1981, the employment relationship between all three plaintiffs .and ChemLawn was terminated. Plaintiffs claim that they were discharged without just cause. Defendant claims that all three resigned voluntarily. At the time plaintiffs’ employment was…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Sparks v. LuplowMichigan Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Cain v. Allen Electric & Equipment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Kirl v. ZinnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Fritz v. MarantetteMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Gaydos v. White Motor Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1974

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Certified QuestionMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Bankey v. Storer Broadcasting Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Mattingly, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
  4. Rodriguez v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1986
  5. David v. ANA Television Network, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1998

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API