Roberts v. County of Mahoning
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DOWD, District Judge.
On March 10, 2005, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 93, 2005 WL 5569487, 495 F.Supp.2d 670), including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This Court found that the Class members (1) are being denied their constitutional rights not to be punished without due process of law and/or not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) are being denied their constitutionally-protected right of access to the courts.
This Court found the remedy in this case is subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). This Court appointed Vincent Nathan…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Associates, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Department of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1991
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Roberts v. Mahoning CountyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
- Roberts v. Mahoning CountyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007
- Roberts v. County of MahoningDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006