Legal Opinion

Turppa v. County of Montmorency

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided April 28, 2010No. Case 09-12974-BCPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Bonnie Turppa believes that her employment was terminated because of her age, and that she is entitled to relief under state and federal law. 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-629; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 37.2101-2804. To obtain relief from this Court, however, she must first identify her employer or employers. For most employees that is a simple task. But for Ms. Turppa, it is complicated by the structure of the Michigan Judiciary and the relationship between the state’s trial…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Turppa v. County of MontmorencyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010
  2. Stewart v. County of SaginawDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024
  3. Stewart v. Wayne County Probate CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025
  4. Szymanski v. EvansDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API