Harris v. Fitchville Township Trustees
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KATZ, District Judge.
This action is before the Court on Defendants’ objections to the February 25, 2000 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate. In accordance with Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir.1981), and 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) & (C), this Court has made a de novo determination of the Magistrate’s findings to which the Defendants object. On April 5, 2000, this Court ordered further briefing in light of City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of DallasSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Harris v. Fitchville Township TrusteesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
- BAS Enterprize, Inc. v. City of MaumeeDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2003