Legal Opinion
Franz v. Iolab, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Decided August 18, 1992No. Civ. A. 91-501PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND REASONS FOR RULING
CLEMENT, District Judge.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was considered this date on memoran-da. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
FACTS
Prior to December 1986, the plaintiffs, Art Franz, William Sem, Tom Walsh, Steve Montague and Pat Fox, were all sales representatives with Precision-Cosmet Company, Inc. The plaintiffs became employees of defendant Iolab, Inc. in December 1986, when Iolab purchased Precision-Cosmet. At that time, each of the plaintiffs accepted a job offer from Iolab to serve as a sales…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Reed v. United Transportation UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Chaplin v. NationsCredit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002
- Williams v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- MacKenzie v. Miller Brewing Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2000
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Whitney National BankDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1993
- Smart v. Gillette Co. Long-Term Disability PlanDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.