Legal Opinion

Hatlestad v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided August 29, 1991No. 91AP-343PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peggy Bryant, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Jose Hatlestad, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellant’s single assignment of error states:

“The Trial Court erred in granting Defendant-Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; erroneously concluding that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., preempted Plaintiff-Appellant’s state law claims.”

In his complaint plaintiff alleges that in June 1989, his employer, defendantappellee, Consolidated Rail Corporation…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Paugh v. HanksOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Pyle v. PyleOhio Court of Appeals · 1983

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hanly v. Riverside Methodist HospitalsOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Griswold v. Fresenius USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1997
  3. DiPuccio v. United Parcel ServiceDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1995
  4. Potocnik v. Sifco Industries, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Heck v. Board of Trustees, Kenyon CollegeDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998

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

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

Powered by the Exa API