Legal Opinion
Hutchinson v. Cox
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided January 21, 1992No. C-3-90-206PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND DECISION
MICHAEL R. MERZ, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Vivian Hutchinson brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a declaration that Ohio’s post-judgment statutory procedure for execution on personal property is unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction against enforcement of those statutes. Because the challenged Ohio statutes deprive Plaintiff and those similarly situated of property without due process of law, the requested relief will be granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THE CASE
Plaintiff brought this action as a class action on behalf of herself and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Collins v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Henderson v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Strickland v. AlexanderDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2015
- Gaines v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. ElkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 2020