Legal Opinion
Armstead v. Baldwin
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided January 29, 2021No. 2:19-cv-04857Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DEMARCO ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:19-cv-4857 v. Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson SHERIFF DALLAS BALDWIN, et al., : Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (ECF Nos. 307, 309.) Plaintiff Demarco Armstead has responded (ECF No. 312), and Defendants have each replied (ECF Nos. 314, 315). The matter is now ripe for consideration. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rulli v. Fan Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Re/max International, Inc., Re/max Northeast Ohio Limited Partnership, Intervenors-Appellees v. Realty One, Inc., Smythe, Cramer CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1972
- Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Demetrious Smith v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.