Legal Opinion

Boresen v. Rohm & Haas, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 30, 1981No. Civ. A. 78-2292PublishedCited by 24 opinions

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

  1. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  4. Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas CompanyIndiana Supreme Court · 1973
  5. 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

  1. Clare R. Bruffett v. Warner Communications, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  2. Darlington v. General ElectricSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community CollegeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Rossi v. Pennsylvania State UniversitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Turner v. Letterkenny Federal Credit UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

19 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