3293 search results for query *

Summary: 235 F. Supp. This is a civil rights suit by registered electors of the Kelleys Island precinct in Erie County, Ohio, whose qualifications to be registered in that precinct were challenged. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges that those challenges and their consideration, and, as to some of the named plaintiffs, unfavorable adjudication: 1) contravened the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. (VRA); 2) denied, as a result of application of § 3503.02(D) of the more.

Summary: 377 F. Supp. Briefly summarized, plaintiff charges that the defendant through its alleged agents, General Motor dealerships specifically including Blaushild Chevrolet, Inc., David Blaushild, owner and operator of the dealership and Ronald Brolin, a salesman for Blaushild Chevrolet, Inc., induced the plaintiff and other members of a purported class to purchase automobiles manufactured by the defendant during Phase I of the Wage-Price controls as established by Executive Order No. 11615 while at more.

Summary: 118 F. Supp. Thus, Doughty brings claims against defendants for: (1) deprivation of her right to free speech, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) conspiracy to deprive her of her right to free speech, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 & 1986; (3) malicious prosecution, in violation of state law; and (4) abuse of process, in violation of state law. [2] Finally, Doughty adds the allegation that when Vermilion enacted Ordinance § 666.18, it failed to comply with the posting, notice, and reading more.

Summary: 113 F. Supp. Whatever question there may have been at the time of the commencement of this action as to whether the civil rights of the plaintiffs and others of the same class were being violated by a policy of segregation in screening eligible applicants to said housing projects by the defendant, that has been removed by the action of the defendant since the filing of the complaint herein, in adopting its Resolution No. 1871, relating to the subject, and reading as follows: "Resolution No. more.

Summary: 622 F. Supp. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Civil Rule 59(a) provides that a "court may ... grant a new trial on some or all of the issues ... after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court ..." In Holmes v. City *644 of Massillon, 78 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (6th Cir.1996), the court noted that the Sixth Circuit has interpreted Rule 59(a) to mean that "a new trial is warranted when a jury [reaches] a `seriously erroneous'" result. more.

Summary: 830 F. Supp. 1029 (1993) SUMMIT COUNTY CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. Lee FISHER, Attorney General of the State of Ohio in his Official Capacity, Defendant. Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436, 439 (6th Cir. Collins v. Nagle, 892 F.2d 489 (6th *1032 Cir.1989); and Sosa v. Coleman, 646 F.2d 991 (5th Cir.1981). 2d 377 (1964); and Ada-Cascade Watch Co. v. Cascade Resource Recovery, 720 F.2d 897 (6th Cir.1983). Johnson v. Honeywell Information Systems, Inc., 955 F.2d 409 (6th Cir.1992); and more.

Summary: 519 F. Supp. Village of Oakwood v. State Bank and Trust Co., 410 F. Supp. v. F.D.I.C., 132 F.3d 746, 753 (D.C.Cir.1997) (explaining that parties may bring suit against the FDIC "in the Court of Federal Claims, if they have a Tucker Act suit for more than $10,000; they may bring a Tucker Act suit for a lesser amount in either the Court of Federal Claims or a district court; and they may sue in any court of law or equity under the FDIC sue-or-be-sued clause"); Far West Fed. Bank, S.B. v. Dir., more.

Summary: 133 F. Supp. Plaintiffs the Ability Center of Greater Toledo ("ACT ") and individuals with mobility impairments seek injunctive relief alleging that defendant City of Sandusky ("City") failed to install curb ramps on sidewalks as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiffs also allege that the City failed to develop and implement a transition plan for the installation of curb cuts as required by the ADA. 2 at 84 (1990); Deck v. City of Toledo, 76 F. Supp. A. Curb Ramps more.

Summary: 478 F. Supp. Theodore M. Rowen, Cheryl F. Wolff, Spengler Nathanson, Toledo, OH, for Defendants. Plaintiff requested this leave commence January 1, 2001, and asked for up to three years because Tuskegee was undergoing a review by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, which is normally a three-year process (Giles Aff. ¶ 9). Murry's November 2000 confirmation letter to Plaintiff only approved one year, and advised that if a second year was necessary, Plaintiff should make " more.

Summary: 232 F. Supp. Meanwhile, on 21 June 2002, Mr. Thrower filed two complaints in Federal District Court, which have been consolidated in this case. LAW AND ANALYSIS Defendants contend that, under the Younger abstention doctrine, this case should be stayed pending resolution of the state court proceedings regarding the condemnation order. Development of the Younger Abstention Doctrine In Younger v. Harris, Mr. Harris filed a complaint in federal district court, asking the court to enjoin the more.

Summary: 783 F. Supp. 2d 995 (2011) Adrian ROCHE, Petitioner, v. Cynthia HARTZ, Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge: After a bench trial, the Court decides this child abduction case brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 24, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. In addition to other ancillary relief, Petitioner Adrian Roche seeks an order compelling the return of his two minor children — more.

Summary: 694 F. Supp. I Anderson worked for H-P as a personnel supervisor in its Cleveland office. When he was hired, Anderson was told that he would eventually be transferred to either St. Louis or Cleveland. After he was hired, Anderson spent almost a full year at the Rolling Meadows office, being trained *1296 for a position elsewhere. The H-P guidelines on which Anderson relies were given to him in his capacity as a personnel supervisor. The Court thus concludes that the H-P personnel and policy more.

Summary: 546 F. Supp. Before this Court for final approval is a settlement in three related consumer class actions which charge major food retailers in Northeast Ohio with price fixing in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 15. Michael Rosen v. Fisher Foods, et al. was filed on May 14, 1980 against Fisher and Pick-N-Pay, alleging that those enterprises conspired to "fix prices on the sale of food products" in Lorain County, Ohio. See also In re Montgomery County Real Estate Antitrust Litigation, 83 F.R.D. 305 ( more.

Summary: 980 F. Supp. *904 William F. Schmitz, Eugene B. Meador, Kitchen, Deery & Barnhouse, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff. 2d 176 (1962); see also U.S. v. Hodges X-Ray, Inc., 759 F.2d 557, 562 (6th Cir.1985). Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937, 941 (6th Cir.1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir.1995) (citing Anderson, at 248-49, 106 S.Ct. Cox v. Kentucky Dept. of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir.1995). Wiley v. U.S., 20 F.3d 222, more.

Summary: 290 F. Supp. In this regard, the language of Judge Goodrich in Downing v. Howard, 162 F.2d 654, 655-656 (CA3, 1947) is appropriate: "It is apparent that the question which we have to settle is whether the plaintiff has stated a basis for recovery under the federal statute just mentioned. In paragraph 9 of the amended complaint plaintiff concludes that the common stock of the defendant corporation "has been selling at an earnings multiple significantly lower than other companies in the industry"; more.

Summary: 430 F. Supp. Specifically, the Government claims to have held a perfected security interest in crops grown in 1969 and 1970 on a parcel of land farmed by Robert G. Vondenhuevel and Mary K. Vondenhuevel by virtue of several security agreements entered into between the Farmers Home Administration and the Vondenhuevels, and allegedly perfected through the filing of a financing statement and a continuation statement with the proper state officials. 2) On April 26, 1965, March 15, 1967, May 16, 1967, more.

Summary: 107 F. Supp. 2d 871 (2000) CITICASTERS CO., Plaintiff, v. STOP 26-RIVERBEND, INC., et al., Defendants. *872 I. BACKGROUND This case originated on June 20, 2000, when Citicasters Co. ("Citicasters") filed a complaint in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas against Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc. ("Stop 26") and Esq. In connection with the advance, the parties also entered in a Time Brokerage Agreement ("TBA") dated June 30, 1998,[1] whereby, for a monthly fee of $12,000, Stop 26 agreed to accept more.

Summary: 500 F. Supp. MEMORANDUM BEN C. GREEN, Senior District Judge: Plaintiff, Brush Wellman, Inc. (hereafter Brush), filed this action against the United States Department of Labor (hereafter D.O.L.) and several other defendants[1] pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (hereafter F.O.I.A.), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Brush seeks an order from this Court enjoining D.O.L. from withholding certain documents generated in the course of a D.O.L. rulemaking proceeding. On October 17, 1975 the Occupational Safety more.

Summary: 29 F. Supp. Roger Allen Hipp, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, OH, Matthew A. Kairis, Jeffrey J. Jones, Melanie S. Fahey, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Columbus, OH, Daniel F. Kolb, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for RJR Nabisco, Inc., defendant. Craig E. Gustafson, Gary R. Long, William J. Crampton, Bruce R. Tepekian, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, Samuel R. Martillotta, Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos, Cleveland, OH, Patrick M. McLaughlin, John F. McCaffrey, McLaughlin & more.