Legal Opinion
Sweet v. General Tire & Rubber Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided May 27, 1976No. C75-181APublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MANOS, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Marnie Sweet and Dolly Hag-erman filed a complaint on June 26,1975 on behalf of themselves and a class defined as follows:
“All women who have been employed, who are employed, or who may become employed during the pendency of this suit at Defendant General Tire and Rubber Co. at its corporate headquarters (“Co. 10”), tire division headquarters (“Co. 15”), and international division headquarters (“Co. 97”), at the Akron, Ohio facility who have been, who will during the pend-ency of this suit, or who continue to be affected by the Defendant’s…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- Day v. NLO, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1992
- Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1992
- Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1995
- Smith v. B & O RailroadDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1979
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.