Legal Opinion
Adamo v. Anchor Hocking Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 27, 1989No. Civ. A. 87-600PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
D. BROOKS SMITH, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for decision following a non-jury proceeding com menced on May 17, 1989. 1 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) we enter the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiffs, Richard A. Adamo (Ada-mo), John D. Subasic (Subasic), Thomas Ross (Ross), and Brian F. Hanlon (Hanlon) were employees of Anchor Hocking Corporation’s Shenango China Division in New Castle, Pennsylvania. (Stipulation of fact ¶¶ 1, 5, 9, 13).
2. Adamo was employed by Anchor Hocking at its New Castle…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Harry Jung, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Fmc Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Barrett v. Thorofare Markets, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
- Reynolds v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1984
- Grossmuller v. International Union, UAWDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Maria H. Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- George W. Mitchell v. Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Abnathya v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23945s Kimberly J. Crocco v. Xerox Corporation and Patricia M. Nazemetz, and American Psychmanagement, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Abnathya v. Hoffmann-La RocheCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.