Legal Opinion
Tye v. Spitzer-Dodge
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided October 24, 1980No. C-2-77-893PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
KINNEARY, District Judge.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff, Edna F. Tye, alleging that the defendant, Spitzer-Dodge, failed to comply with the odometer tampering and disclosure requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, 15 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. The matter is now before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 56(c), F.R.Civ.P., provides in relevant part that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, deposi tions, answers to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corporation v. Storm King CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1962
- Frank D. Felix D/B/A Club Zeus v. Coleman A. Young, Mayor, City of DetroitCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Ferris v. HaymoreCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
- Alexander v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Darr v. LongNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
- State of Utah by Wilkinson v. B & H AutoDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1988
- Jones v. Roy Stanley ChevroletDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.