Legal Opinion
Smith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided October 28, 1997No. 96-5168PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs Clarence and Betty Smith filed this action against defendant Rogers Galvanizing Company, alleging defendant violated the continuation rules of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-1168, by failing to give plaintiffs notice of entitlement to elect to continue their health care coverage upon Clarence Smith’s termination from employment with defendant. Following a non-jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, concluding defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with sufficient notice of their right to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- David and Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Cooperative Society, David and Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Cooperative SocietyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Shefton Gordon v. United States Steel Corporation, United States Steel and Carnegie Pension FundCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
- Steven L. Wilson v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Jimmy Stanton v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc., Jimmy Stanton v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Lawrence v. Jackson MacK Sales, Inc.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Bylin v. BillingsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Kannady v. City of KiowaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- Beaudry v. Corrections Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Miller v. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
- Torres-Negron v. Merck & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.