Legal Opinion

Kulling v. Grinders for Industry, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided February 28, 2002No. 99-74339PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING VARIOUS POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

ROSEN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Laverne Kulling, Richard A. Beal, and William A. Scheib brought suit in this Court on September 3,-1999, alleging that Plaintiffs Beal and Scheib and Plaintiff Kulling’s late husband, Carl G. Kulling, were unlawfully discharged from their employment with Defendant Toyoda Machinery U.S.A. Corporation (“Toyoda”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Defendant Grinders For Industry, Inc. (“GFI”), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 1 This case…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Officer Melissa Kallstrom v. City of ColumbusCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  4. Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Debra Black v. Zaring Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2017
  2. Sherman v. KasotakisDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2004
  3. Adell v. John Richards Homes Building Co. (In Re John Richards Homes Building Co.)District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2004
  4. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2018
  5. Seay v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2004

3 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