Legal Opinion
LOCAL 377, CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA v. Humility of Mary Health Partners
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided August 11, 2003No. 4:01 CV 02636PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ECONOMUS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 23; Dkt. # 24.)
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. The Defendant, Humility of Mary Health Partners (“HM”), operates health care facilities located in Youngstown, Ohio. (Dkt. # 1, Compl. ¶ 3; Dkt. # 8, Answer ¶ 3.) The Plaintiff, Local No. 377, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Ware-housemen and Helpers of America (“the Union”), is the collective bargaining representative for certain hourly employees of HM. (Compl. ¶ 2;…
2Cases cited20 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
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hall v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- Giles v. University of ToledoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320 v. County of St. LouisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- CapWealth Advisors, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2023
- Giles v. University of ToledoDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.