Legal Opinion
Burgess v. Adams Tool & Engineering, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided December 26, 1995No. 5:94-CV-190PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
McKEAGUE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs complain that the defendants have violated various provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), specifically those codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-1168, which amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, el seq. The parties have submitted briefs in lieu of trial on this matter. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court awards judgment in favor of the defendants.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff Joseph Burgess began his employment with Adams Tool and Engineering, Inc. in April of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Luis E. Rodriguez-Abreu v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Bartling v. Fruehauf Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- David and Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Cooperative Society, David and Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Cooperative SocietyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Murphy R. Godwin v. Sun Life Assurance Company of CanadaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- DiSabatino v. DiSabatino Bros., Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1995
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Terry McDowell Individually and in His Capacity as of the Last Will of Sharon Sidovar v. John Raymond Krawchison Winton Road Chiropractic Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Holford v. Exhibit Design ConsultantsDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2002
- Risteen v. Youth for Understanding, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Roberts v. National Health Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1997
- Daneshvar v. Graphic Technology, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.