Boresen v. Rohm & Haas, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Chief Judge.
In this diversity action, plaintiff claims that his employer, Rohm & Haas, Inc., improperly and unlawfully discharged him in contravention of the common law of Pennsylvania. 1 On the basis of a stipulated factual record, 2 defendant has moved for summary judgment arguing that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge under the facts of this case. I heard oral argument on October 19, 1981. For the reasons that follow, I grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and enter judgment in favor of Rohm & Haas and against…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas CompanyIndiana Supreme Court · 1973
- Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396California Court of Appeal · 1959
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Clare R. Bruffett v. Warner Communications, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Darlington v. General ElectricSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community CollegeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Rossi v. Pennsylvania State UniversitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Turner v. Letterkenny Federal Credit UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.