Case law

Beckett v. Ford

613 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 11, 2009

Shorts v. Bartholomew, 255 Fed.Appx. 46, 57 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Fairley v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2002)); see also Brown v. Shaner, 172 F.3d 927, 930 (6th Cir.1999). … Spurlock v.

Rios v. Blackwell

345 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 23, 2004

With the applications, the plaintiffs posted the requisite bonds with each of the county boards of elections. … News Herald v. Ruyle, 949 F.Supp. 519, 521 (N.D.Ohio 1996) (citing Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 564 (6th Cir.1982)). 2.

Reed v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

312 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 9, 2004

In fact, in Topping v. … McGinn v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 848 F.Supp. 827, 831 (N.D.Ill.1994). More recently, in Haworth v.

United States v. Beiersdorf-Jobst, Inc.

980 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 1997

See, e.g., Aiken v. Business and Indus. Health Group, 885 F.Supp. 1474 (D.Kan.1995); Hanntz v. Shiley, Inc., 766 F.Supp. 258, 265 (D.N.J.1991); Valassis v. … Adopting this view, the Board stated: In construing DR 7-104(A), this Board’s view is that notification and consent of corporate counsel is not required prior to interviewing a former employee of a corporation.

Boustani v. Blackwell

460 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2006

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 84 S.Ct. 526 , 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). … Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 , 96 S.Ct. 2673 , 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976).

Donovan v. United Counties Carpenters District Council

561 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 22, 1983

See, e.g., Local 3489, United Steelworkers of America v. Usery, 429 U.S. 305, 307-09 , 97 S.Ct. 611, 613-14 , 50 L.Ed.2d 502 (1977); Wirtz v. … Alvey v. General Electric Co., 622 F.2d 1279 , 1284 n. 5 (7th Cir.1980); Brennan v. Independent Lift Truck Builders Union, 490 F.2d 213 , 217 n. 6 (7th Cir.1974).

Edward Maurer Co. v. Tubeless Tire Co.

272 F. 990 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 26, 1921

Ed. 960 ; Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, Kerr & Co., Appeal Cases, H. of L. 119, [1917] 2 K. B. 1; Roxford Knitting Co. v. Moore & Tierney (2 C. C. A.) 265 Fed. 177 . … Co. v. Shepard & Morse Lumber Co., 220 Mass. 207 , 107 N. E. 917 ; Hull Coal & Coke Co. v. Empire Coal & Coke Co. (4 C. C. A.) 113 Fed. 256 , 51 C. C. A. 213 ; Brooke Tool Mfg. Co. v. Hydraulic Gears Co.

In re Om Group Securities Litigation

226 F.R.D. 579 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2005

See Guardsmark, Inc. v. … Profit Sharing Plan v.

Top-Scor Products, Inc. v. H. C. Fisher Co.

257 F. Supp. 775 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 1966

In Wiegand v. W. … Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. v. Turchan, 208 F.2d 222, 227 (CA 6, 1953). See also, Thabet Mfg. Co. v. Kool Vent Metal Awning Corp., 226 F.2d 207, 210 (CA 6, 1955); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v.

Blythe v. Schlievert

245 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2017

In Harville v. … Brown v. Newberger, 291 F.3d 89, 93 (1st Cir. 2002). Finally, plaintiffs assert in passing that the defendant doctors were state actors because their employer, Toledo Hospital, *969 was a “partner” with CSB.

Rainworks Ltd. v. Mill-Rose Co.

609 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 17, 2009

When GPI’s brushes were packaged by Mill-Rose in generic brown boxes, Mill-Rose applied a GPI label to the outer surface of the generic brown boxes prior to shipping the generic brown boxes. … The generic brown boxes had no markings other than GPI’s label, GPI designed and approved GPI’s labels that were applied to the generic brown boxes....

Saalim v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2022

See Rees v. Olmsted, 135 F. 296, 299 (6th Cir. 1905); State ex rel. Shriver v. Board of Comm’rs, 148 Ohio St. 277, 277 (1947). “Powers explicitly granted to the board are to be strictly construed.” Slough v. … v.

Electric Furnace Co. v. Fire Ass'n

111 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 1952

In Lawson v. … The Supreme Court, in Chapman v.

Harris v. Fitchville Township Trustees

154 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 2001

See Wilcox v. … Threesome bases its argument on Gibson v.

Local No 499, Board of Trustees of Shopmen's Pension Plan v. Art Iron, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2021

ORDER  INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, the Board of Trustees (“Board”) of the Shopmen’s Local 499 Pension Plan (“the Plan”), brought … Fund v.

Local 8, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

230 F. Supp. 2d 801 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 30, 2002

The jurisdiction of the Board to base its decision on the allegedly improper factors; and 3. The authority of the Board to reduce the number of electrical foremen. … See, e.g., Schneider v. S. Ry. Co., 822 F.2d 22, 24 (6th Cir.1987). Discovery is generally not allowed in other circumstances in which judicial review is similarly circumscribed. See generally Lasser v.

Scott v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines

5 F.R.D. 11 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 8, 1945

C.C. 456; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476 , 25 L.Ed. 237 ; Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U.S. 618 , 45 S.Ct. 621 , 69 L.Ed. 1119 ; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300 , 9 L.Ed. 1093 . … . * * * ” Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, supra [ 268 U.S. 618 , 45 S.Ct. 622 ].

Kaiser v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

514 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 17, 1981

Kaiser v. Penn Central Transportation Co., No. 75-480. … Once a claim is submitted to the Board, the Railway Labor Act permits judicial review only after the Board has rendered its decision. 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (¶).

Hill v. Aro Corporation

275 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 1967

Unless the controversy falls within one of several exceptions, (such as that it constitutes a breach of a labor contract under Section 301) jurisdiction is pre-empted by the Board. Vaca v. … In fact such a determination is not even treated as final within the Board. A complaint may be issued even though there has been a prior refusal to issue it by the director. NLRB v.

Calatrello v. Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc.

823 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 1, 2011

The merits of unfair labor practice charges are to be determined by the National Labor Relations Board, subject to review by the appropriate appellate court. Schaub v. … E.g., United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966), 383 U.S. 715, 730 [, 86 S.Ct. 1130 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218 ]; Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302 v.