Legal Opinion
Range v. Ford Motor Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided August 16, 2005No. 1:04 CV 32Published
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NUGENT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document # 41). Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Ford Motor Company, has petitioned the Court for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs claims. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to all of Plaintiffs claims.
FACTS
On February 28, 2003, Plaintiff, Traci S. Range, as Administratrix of the Estate of David K. Hinderman, (“Plaintiff’), filed a workplace intentional tort claim against Defendant…
2Cases cited14 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
- Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James StephensCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.