Legal Opinion
Stychno v. Ohio Edison Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided August 3, 1992No. 5:90 CV 02096PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
SAM H. BELL, District Judge.
Currently before the court is a motion to dismiss Ohio Edison’s third party complaint. (Docket # 56) The moving parties are two third-party defendants, Summit-Warren Industries and Harold F. Glunt. This motion requests prejudicial dismissal of the entire third party complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, subdivisions (b)(6) and (c). This motion is the exclusive subject of the following order.
BACKGROUND
In its third party pleading, Ohio Edison seeks to shift liability it may incur for hazardous waste .contamination under the Comprehensive…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Chatham Steel Corp. v. BrownDistrict Court, N.D. Florida · 1994
- Idylwoods Associates v. Mader Capital, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1996
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's LondonDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1993
- Westlake Vinyls, Inc. v. Goodrich Corp.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2007
- AM Properties Corp. v. GTE Products Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.