Legal Opinion

Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 25, 1985PublishedCited by 141 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

The defendant, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., has filed a motion for clarification of our opinion in Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284 (1985). The motion notes that the Court ruled that on remand there would be no trial of the “good cause” issue because that would be unfair, given the “fact” that defendant Hoffmann-La Roche had not complied with the termination procedures required by contract. Id. at 307-08. The opinion notes that “on the record before us the employer’s failure [to have complied] is undeniable.”

The motion for clarification points out…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985

3Cited by141 opinions

  1. Albert L. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey, Albert LawrenceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  2. Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
  3. Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
  4. Margaret Tourtellotte v. Eli Lilly & CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
  5. Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995

136 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