Legal Opinion
Harris v. Akron Department of Public Health
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided May 8, 2001No. Nos. 00-3497, 00-3511, 00-3528, 00-3540, 00-3544PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Pro se plaintiffs Charlie and Jacqueline Harris, Raymond L. Borom, John H. Harris, Harold Harris, and Anthony C. Mauro (proceeding individually and as President of Urban Imperial Building and Rental Corporation) appeal a district court judgment dismissing their consolidated civil rights actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
*318In 1996, the City of Akron, Ohio (“City”) enacted…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of HialeahSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Carolyn Morgan v. Church's Fried ChickenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Baron T. Youn Kyong Hwan Choi, D/B/A Ckh Sportsworld, Ltd. v. Track, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- David Shoemaker v. City of HowellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Jones v. WildgenDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2004
- Jones v. WildgenDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2004
- Allstate Insurance Company v. Lint Chiropractic PCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.