Legal Opinion
Penzien v. Dielectric Products Engineering Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1965No. Calendar 13, Docket 50,534PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
Plaintiffs sued for severance pay claimed by them as tbird-party beneficiaries of a collective bargaining agreement, basing their claim on this contract language:
“Termination of Operations
“110. It is hereby agreed that in the event the company takes any steps to close down operations in the Mount Clemens area plant or plants, this matter including the question of severance pay, shall become subject to negotiation upon 24 hours notice by either party. It is further understood and agreed that paragraph 103 shall not apply in the event of failure to reach agreement in such negotiations.”
Paragraph…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Paul v. University Motor Sales Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Gardner v. City National Bank & Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Britten v. UpdykeMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
- Nichols v. National Tube Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1954
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
- Amerisure Mutual Insurance v. Carey Transportation, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008
- In re City of DetroitUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2013
- In re City of DetroitUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2013
- In re McInerneyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.