Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
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
- Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
3Cited by141 opinions
- Albert L. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey, Albert LawrenceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
- Margaret Tourtellotte v. Eli Lilly & CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
- Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
136 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.