Legal Opinion

Roberts v. County of Mahoning

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided May 25, 2006No. 4:03 CV 2329PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Associates, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. 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

  1. Roberts v. Mahoning CountyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
  2. Roberts v. Mahoning CountyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007
  3. Roberts v. County of MahoningDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API