Legal Opinion

Fischbach v. City of Toledo

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided June 27, 2011No. Case 3:06 CV 2588PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KATZ, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant, the City of Toledo, for summary judgment (Doc. 77). Plaintiff, John Fischbach, has filed an opposition (Doc. 85) to that motion, to which Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. 93). The motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Plaintiff is employed as an Instrumentation Technician for the City of Toledo, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water Reclamation, a classification subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff is a member of the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. 60 Ivy Street Corporation (86-5500), and Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., (86-5517) v. R.C. Alexander and Doris AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
  5. Vincent C. Wiley v. United States of America Citizens Federal Mortgage Corporation State of Ohio Franklin County Treasurer and Houng ThaiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Root v. Decorative Paint IncorporatedDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API