William Horton v. Miller Chemical Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “to show retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff must set forth sufficient facts from which it can be inferred that (1) he was discharged ... and (2
• argument that physician’s report was ambiguous on whether plaintiff was to forever refrain from lifting
• termination based on employer’s incorrect assumption that employee could never perform job duties again not retaliatory
• termination based on employer’s incorrect assumption that employee could never perform job duties again not retal‐ iatory
• “The non-movant ‘has the right to prove ... [his case] by circumstantial evidence, which consists of proof of facts and circumstances from which the jury may infer other connected facts, reasonably following from the proven facts and circumstances.’ ”
• “The non-movant ‘has the right to prove ... [his case] by circumstantial evidence, which consists of proof of facts and circumstances from which the jury may infer other connected facts, reasonably following from the proven facts and circumstances.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).