green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Coles v. Perry
See Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390, 392-94 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff 'd without opinion at 639 F.2d 774 (3rd Cir.1980); Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 797 F.2d 1417, 1423 (7th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.
See Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390 , 393 n. 4 (E.D.Pa.) (stating that “even the strongest jury instructions could not have dulled the impact of a parade of witnesses, each recounting his contention that defendant laid him off because of his age”), aff'd, 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Franco-Rivera v. Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance
See Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390 , 394 n. 6 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff'd 639 F.2d 774 (3rd Cir.1980); see also Schrand v. Federal Pacific Electric Co., 851 F.2d 152 (6th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority v. Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority
See, for example, Mikkilineni v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., 485 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D.Pa.1980) and Mount Joy Construction Co. v. Schramm, 486 F.Supp. 32 (E.D.Pa.), aff’d, 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir. 1980) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies where doing so permitted agency to act initially) and Martin v. Easton Publishing Co., 478 F.Supp. 796, 797 (E.D.Pa.1979) (dismissing defendants in Title VII action where plaintiff failed to include them in the EEOC complaint, for “holding plaintiff to this requirement is not mechanical or unthinking allegiance to legal hypertechnicalitie…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Delce v. Amtrak & Resco Holdings, Inc.
Henderson v. AT & T Corp., 918 F.Supp. 1059, 1063 (S.D.Tex.1996); see also, Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390, 392 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abrams v. Lightolier Inc.
In that case the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the testimony of six former employees had been admitted in error because their stories did not produce statistically significant evidence of a pattern and practice of discrimination and, thus, any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial impact of " 'a parade of witnesses, each recounting his contention that defendant has laid him off because of his age.' " Haskell, 743 F.2d at 122 ; see also Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390, 393-94 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd without op., 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abrams v. Lightolier Inc.
In that case the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the testimony of six former employees had been admitted in error because their stories did not produce statistically significant evidence of a pattern and practice of discrimination and, thus, any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial impact of " 'a parade of witnesses, each recounting his contention that defendant has laid him off because of his age.' " Haskell, 743 F.2d at 122 ; see also Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390, 393-94 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd without op., 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Baskin, Flaherty, Elliot & Mannino, P.C.
See also Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390, 394 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff'd, 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir.1981); Davis v. Southeastern Community College, 424 F.Supp. 1341 (1976), vacated in part on other grounds, 574 F.2d 1158 (1978); Pavlo v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., 22 FEP Cases 489, 496-97 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (allowing the conspiracy count only because the plaintiff was only 35 years old, and, thus, not within the protected class under the ADEA).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murphy v. Publicker Industries, Inc.
(2×)
See also Moorhouse v. Boeing Company, 501 F.Supp. 390 (E.D.Pa), aff’d mem., 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir.1980) (Court found that plaintiff had not proven facts sufficient to justify conclusion that employer had agreed to employ plaintiff permanently; thus, additional consideration required to support such an agreement not relevant); Wood v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 536 F.Supp. 56 (E.D.Pa. 1981) (Court found there was insufficient evidence of a permanent employment contract and there was just cause to fire). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marine Insurance Co.
v.
Disanto
v.
Disanto
80-1954.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Dec 10, 1980.
639 F.2d 774
Published
Marine Insurance Co.
v.
DiSanto
80-1954
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit
12/10/80
1
E.D.Pa.
AFFIRMED