Legal Opinion
Konstantinov v. Findlay Ford Lincoln Mercury
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided January 28, 2008No. 04-CV-74928PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 69] AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS [DOC. 103]
GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.
Defendant Findlay Ford Lincoln Mercury (“Findlay Ford”) is an automobile dealership with its principal place of business in Ohio. In addition to being a regular Ford dealership, for five years Findlay Ford was in the business of selling limousines, until they withdrew from that business in 1997. During that time they sold approximately two to three thousand limousines.
In 1995, Gambino’s Westside Limousine Service,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- McLean v. 988011 Ontario, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kraft v. DR. LEONARD'S HEALTHCARE CORP.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2009
- Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan, as Subrogee of Kitchen Farms, Inc. v. 1,4 Group, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2022
- Steele v. American Honda Motor CO., Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020