Legal Opinion
Ullmo v. Ohio Turnpike & Infrastructure Commission
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided August 25, 2015No. Case No. 1:15 CV 822PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission’s (the “Commission”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Melissa Ullmo’s Complaint. (ECF No. 7). For the following *914reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part, and the case is remanded to state court.
I
The Commission is responsible for the maintenance of the Ohio Turnpike, a 241-mile long highway through northern Ohio comprising of portions of Interstates 90, 80, and 76. On January 1, 2014, the Commission increased the amount that drivers have to pay…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Musson Theatrical, Inc., and Modernage Photo Service, Inc., for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Federal Express CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Pa. Tpk. Comm'nDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
- A.B. Pratt & Co v. Bridgeport Group, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2023
- American Security & Audio Video Systems, Inc. v. Prep TMT, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2025
- Conte v. WhiteDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2022
- Curl v. DammeyerDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2022
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.