Ramik v. Darling International, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GADOLA, District Judge.
Before the Court are the following motions: the Ramik Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability; Plaintiff City of Melvindale’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability; and Plaintiff City of Melvindale’s Motion for Rule 65 Injunctive Relief. For reasons stated below, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and Plaintiff City of Melvindale’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Darling International, Inc. owns and operates a “rendering” plant in the City of Melvindale.…
2Cases cited30 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
- University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Sampson v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU. Com, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
- Amphion, Inc. v. Buckeye Electric Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
- Kelly Services, Inc. v. NorettoDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2007
- Bowens v. Aftermath EntertainmentDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
- American Civil Liberties Union Fund v. Livingston CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2014
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.