Abbington v. Dayton Malleable
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
561 F. Supp. 1290 (1983)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In June 1979, the president of Dayton Malleable, Inc. (DMI) (codefendant) informed the United Steelworkers of America (union) (defendant) that DMI would close its money-losing foundry unless the union agreed to four contract changes that might convince DMI’s board of directors to invest $8 million to $10 million in new equipment. The president outlined the changes, one of which was an extension of the existing collective-bargaining agreement through December 1980. The president told the foundry’s employees, including Abbington (plaintiffs), that with the contract changes and new equipment, DMI would “have at least a chance to make this plant successful once again.” The employees voted to accept the contract changes, which were memorialized in a memorandum of agreement. DMI invested $5 million in new equipment, but continuing heavy losses forced DMI to close the foundry in May 1980. Abbington and the other employees sued DMI and the union on several counts, including breach of DMI’s oral and written promises to invest $8 million to $10 million in modernizing the foundry and to keep the foundry open through December 1980.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Duncan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
