Legal Opinion

At&T CORP. v. City of Toledo

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided January 3, 2005No. 3:03 CV 7529PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KATZ, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. No. 8), to which Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. No. 14), Defendant, a reply (Doc. No. 17), and Plaintiff, a surreply (Doc. No. 19). Defendant has filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs surre-ply (Doc. No. 20), to which Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. No. 21), and Defendant, a reply (Doc. No. 22). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Defendant’s motion to strike is denied as moot.

Background

In 2001, as the result of a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Edward E. Westlake v. William Lucas, Sheriff of Wayne CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
  5. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re Complaint of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Fager v. CenturyLink Communications, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
  3. City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  4. At & T CORP. v. Lucas CountyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005
  5. City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API