Legal Opinion
ARDINGO v. Potter
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided August 8, 2006No. 1:04-cv-835PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Robert Potter and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 951’s (“Union”) Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). The Motion has been fully briefed and the Court discerns no reason to hear oral argument. W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(d). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant Union is a labor organization headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Defendant Potter is its duly elected President. In 1990,…
2Cases cited21 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
- Shirley J. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO HOSPITAL, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kaanta v. International Union, USA (The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America)District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024