2860 search results for query *

Summary: 687 F. Supp. This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants Stokes, Withworth, Schuster, Murdock, Taft and DeCourcy (doc. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed August 18, 1986 and, after three extensions, plaintiff filed her first response on September 30, 1986 (doc. On October 30, 1986, after an additional month had passed, the Magistrate again extended plaintiff's time to respond with counter documents rather than grant defendants' motion, more.

Summary: 311 F. Supp. 464 (1970) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF the PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION NO. 189; and Mechanical Contractors Association of Central Ohio, Inc., Respondents. This matter is before the Court on the motion of the plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission), to suppress, under the provisions of Rule 32(c) (1) and (d) of the Federal more.

Summary: 665 F. Supp. 2d 899 (2009) EXECUTONE OF COLUMBUS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTER-TEL, INC., et al., Defendants. Plaintiffs Executone of Columbus, Inc. ("Executone"), Executone Communications *903 Solutions, Inc., CT-Innovations, LLC, Ideacom of the Gulf Coast, Inc., Ideacom Technologies of Georgia, Inc., and Ideacom Technologies, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs"), bring this action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Defendants Inter-Tel, Inc. and Inter-Tel Business more.

Summary: 493 F. Supp. 147 (1980) I. & F. CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL 8, et al., Defendants. In this action plaintiff I. & F. Corporation seeks to vacate a determination made by defendant Joint Trade Board (Board) in a grievance proceeding initiated by defendant International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 8 (Union) against plaintiff. In Hill v. Aro Corp., 263 F. Supp. George more.

Summary: 356 F. Supp. I The Court turns first to the request by defendant Gary for reconsideration of this Court's order of September 8, 1971, D.C., 337 F. Supp. Gary again raises the issue of judicial immunity and relies upon Krause, Admr., et al. v. Rhodes et al., 471 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. Azar v. Conley, 456 F.2d 1382 (6th Cir. Lockhart v. Hoenstine, supra at 460; Ginsburg v. Stern, 125 F. Supp. 1954) (involving a state's attorney and his assistant); Rhodes v. Houston, 202 F. Supp.

Summary: 203 B.R. 256 (1996) In re EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Debtors. In re EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Debtors. Order on Confirmation of Plan November 18, 1996. *257 *258 *259 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE CONFIRMATION OF THE THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTORS, AS MODIFIED SPIEGEL, District Judge, and BURTON PERLMAN, Bankruptcy Judge. INTRODUCTION Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. ("Eagle-Picher"), Daisy Parts, Inc., Transicoil Inc., more.

Summary: 495 F. Supp. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that the defendant Picoma Industries, Inc., practices religious discrimination in violation of § 701(j) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion. The plaintiff Commission claims that the defendant Picoma has discriminated against more.


Summary: 645 F. Supp. This matter is before the Court, following the second trial and jury verdict in plaintiffs' favor, upon Motions of Defendants, Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., et al., for New Trial and/or for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (doc. Both sides appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 756 F.2d 443 which affirmed the securities law claim, reversed the common law fraud claim, and vacated the contract claim and remanded it for retrial. Motions for New more.

Summary: 542 F. Supp. This case is before the Court upon the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants American Postal Workers Union, John Panzeca, and Matthew L. Davis (doc. 2d 415 (1979); Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers Association, Inc., 630 F.2d 1155 (6th Cir. In support of this proposition, the defendant Union relies on an array of reported cases, e.g. Fristoe v. Reynolds Metal Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1974); Dezura v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 470 F. Supp. 121 ( more.

Summary: 387 F. Supp. *1399 Section 2a(7) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 11a(7), provides, in relevant part: . . . courts of bankruptcy . . . are hereby invested . . . with such jurisdiction at law and in equity as will enable them to exercise original jurisdiction in proceedings under this title . . ., to — . . . . . . (7) Cause the estates of bankrupts to be collected, reduced to money, and distributed, and determine controversies in relation thereto, except as herein otherwise provided . . .; and more.

Summary: 521 F. Supp. 833 (1981) Gordon HATTON, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) seeking Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. In Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief, he alleged that he had been an employee of the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company from June, 1968, to April 3, 1979, more.

Summary: 488 F. Supp. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before this Court on the following motions: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Advance Store Co., Inc., Welfare Benefits Plan of Advance Stores, Co., Inc., Employee Term Life Basic and Optional, Accidental Death and Dismemberment Basic and Optional and Dependent Term Life Benefits for Employees of Advance Stores, Co., Inc., Advance Auto Parts Welfare Benefits Plan (collectively "Advance"); (2) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by more.

Summary: 604 F. Supp. As the Sixth Circuit said in United States v. Ambrose, 483 F.2d 742, 753 (6th Cir.1973), "... the defendant was required to introduce evidence of inducement before the prosecution would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed ...," citing, United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882-83 (2d Cir. In United States v. Ambrose, 483 F.2d 742, 753 (6th Cir.1973) the court said, "... the defendant was required to introduce evidence of inducement more.

Summary: 745 F. Supp. 60 Ivy Street Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir.1987); Harris v. Adams, 873 F.2d 929, 931 (6th Cir.1989). McDonald v. Union Camp Corp., 898 F.2d 1155, 1162 (6th Cir. Karnes v. Runyon, 912 F. Supp. See also Street v. J.C Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir.1989); Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029, 1034 (D.C.Cir.1988). National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc., 253 F.3d 900 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting H.R.Rep. While citing other non-binding more.

Summary: 670 F. Supp. LaMura v. United States, 765 F.2d 974 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Joyce, 498 F.2d 592 (7th Cir.1974). 1985); United States v. Bray, 546 F.2d 851 (10th Cir.1976); United States v. Sun First National Bank of Orlando, 510 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir.)2d 809 (1970); United States v. Ahmanson, 415 F.2d 785 (9th Cir.1969); Hinchcliff v. Clarke, 371 F.2d 697, 701 (6th Cir.)2d 1327 (1967); Uhrig v. United States, 592 F. Supp. United States v. Samuels, Kramer & Co., 712 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.1983) more.

Summary: 492 F. Supp. Finally, on June 27, 2003, First Financial filed its First Amended Complaint in the Texas court, including a declaratory judgment action alleging, inter alia, that NCR does not hold a valid copyright in the diagnostic software or, in the alternative, that "NCR is estopped from relying on its copyright to the exclusion of First Financial or has waived any right to rely on same" (Doc. Plating Resources, Inc. v. UTI Carp., 47 F. Supp. Nonetheless, NCR relies heavily on this Court's more.

Summary: 411 F. Supp. This matter is currently before the Court on two pending motions: (1) Plaintiff's motion for authority to notify putative plaintiffs of the pendency of this action and their right to "opt-in" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and (2) Defendant's motion to strike portions of the affidavits of Samantha Harrison and Eric Hamilton, submitted in support of Plaintiff's motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to strike, and denies more.

Summary: 580 F. Supp. This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss the petitioner's amended petition to quash summons. This summons was issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609, which authorizes the IRS to obtain certain taxpayer records from a "third-party recordkeeper," defined so as to include any bank.

Summary: 703 F. Supp. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir.1990) (citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 90 L. Ed. Charvat v. GVN Mich., Inc., 561 F.3d 623, 627 n. 2 (6th Cir.2009) (declining to address the issue because it had not been raised). Charvat, 561 F.3d at 627 n. 2 (citing Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 915 (9th Cir.2000); Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecomms. Premium Servs., Ltd., 156 F.3d 432, 435 (2d Cir.1998); ErieNet, Inc. v. more.