Legal Opinion

Herbst v. Voinovich

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided June 22, 1998No. 1:96-cv-01002PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GWIN, District Judge.

On March 16, 1998, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in this constitutional challenge to Ohio’s system of monetary charges for reinstating the driver’s licenses of those convicted of drunk driving [Docs. 27, 28]. In ruling on these cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court examines whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution stops Plaintiff Paul G. Herbst’s claims for damages or for injunctive relief. Then the Court decides whether it should abstain on prudential grounds from deciding Plaintiff Herbst’s claims.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. MayesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
  2. State v. UskertOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. UskertOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. R. v. Village Of Middleport OhioDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2020
  5. United States v. MayesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API