Legal Opinion
DeSanzo v. Titanium Metals Corp.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided January 10, 2005No. C2-03-524PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SARGUS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Titanium Metals Corp. (“Ti-met”). Plaintiffs, John A. DeSanzo, Kevin T. Rohal and Robert M. Valle, former supervisory employees at Timet, oppose the Motion. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in that diversity of citizenship exists among, the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 1 For the reasons that follow, Ti-met’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I
Timet' operates a titanium processing and…
2Cases cited40 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Staunch v. Continental Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Sosby v. Miller Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Waters v. DrakeDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2015
- Sosby v. Miller Brewing Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2005
- Beery v. Associated Hygienic Products, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.