Myron Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff could not show he was meeting employer’s legitimate expectations while also admitting that he was not meeting his production goals
• concluding that a motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment was not a Rule 60(b) motion since it was made before entry of final judgment
• concluding that a motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment was not a Rule 60(b) motion since it was made before entry of final judgment
• noting that whether a performance standard imposed “was a realistic expectation is not for us to decide”
• holding nine months between complaint and adverse action \suggests no connection\
• finding that Rule 60 was inapplicable prior to final judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).