In re 2016 Primary Election
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
SUTTON, Circuit Judge.
A revealing difficulty with this matter is what to name it. At the district court, the caption read “IN RE: 2016 Primary Election.” That’s all the court could say because the matter arose out of an anonymous phone call to the district court clerk’s office. The caller complained about an accident in the Cincinnati area that *586might make it difficult for voters to reach the polls before they closed at 7:30 p.m. on March 15, 2016, the date of Ohio’s primary election. The clerk’s office relayed the phone call to one of the judges of the district court, apparently no…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Sutton.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Gustav Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PACourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Amanda Sumpter v. Wayne Cty.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
- Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. FDACourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Tre HargettCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.