Legal Opinion

Hardtke v. Exide Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 4, 1993No. Civ. A. 91-CV-4177PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ORDER

VAN ANTWERPEN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, Andrew C. Hardtke (“Hardtke”), brought this action against his former employer, the defendant, Exide Corporation (“Exide”) for separation pay under Exide’s “Separation Payment Policy For Salaried Employees” (“Separation Plan”). In the spring of 1984, a company known as the Richardson Division (“Richardson”) of 'the Witco Corporation entered into an agreement with Exide to purchase Exide’s Stokes Molded Products Division (“Stokes”). On or about December 14, 1984, Hardtke was denied separation pay on the grounds that…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Massachusetts v. MorashSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Blau v. Del Monte Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  4. York v. First Presbyterian ChurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Pane v. RCA Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Barto Technical Services, Inc. v. Persons Listed on Exhibit A-I of the Objection (In Re Wean Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Barto Technical Services, Inc. v. Persons Listed on Exhibit A-I of the Objection (In Re Wean Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Arber v. Equitable Beneficial Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API