Legal Opinion
Balderaz v. Porter
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided December 14, 1983No. C-3-83-581PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART, AND NOT RULING UPON IN PART, MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT; FURTHER PROCEDURES SET
RICE, District Judge.
In this unusual lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that the use of intoxilyzer equipment by Ohio law enforcement officials has resulted in the violation of their federal due process and equal protection rights. This violation comes about, Plaintiffs assert, from interference with the proper operation of the intoxilyzer equipment by radio frequencies (Radio Frequency Interference or RFI), which interference the various Defendants allegedly knew about…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Summe v. Kenton County Clerk's OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
- State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1994
- Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1999
- Johnson v. University Surgical Group AssociatesDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1994
- United States ex rel. Roby v. Boeing Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.