Legal Opinion
Casey v. Hinckley & Schmitt, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided March 8, 1993No. 92 C 8111PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ASPEN, District Judge:
On November 10, 1992, plaintiff Sean Casey filed a two-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Hinckley & Schmitt, Inc. (“Hinckley”), alleging wrongful termination (Count I) and breach of an implied contract (Count II). On December 11, 1992, Hinckley removed the action to this court on the basis that Casey’s claim for breach of an implied contract is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Presently before the court is Casey’s motion to remand for want of subject matter…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. RawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1995
- Schmude v. SheahanDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2002
- Pitchford v. Aladdin Steel, Inc.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1993
- Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Merit Contracting, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1995