Legal Opinion
Yates v. Applied Performance Technologies, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided January 14, 2002No. C2-01-765PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
HOLSCHUH, District Judge.
Seven plaintiffs filed suit on their own behalf, and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Applied Performance Technologies, Inc., its owner Gregory Huddle, and its executive vice president Courtland Bishop. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them overtime pay to which they are entitled under both federal and state law. This matter is currently before the Court on numerous pending motions: (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Record at 5); (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Record at 10); (3)…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
- United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Ambalu v. RosenblattDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2000
- Jordan v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Reis v. Iowa District Court for Polk CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
- State ex rel. Conkle v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Josepha Campinha-Bacote v. Kristi HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Pittman v. Chase Home Fin., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012
- AMERICAN COMMERCIAL BARGE LINE LLC v. IWC OIL & REFINERY, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2025
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.