Legal Opinion
Hivner v. Active Electric, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided July 23, 2012No. Case No. 12-cv-001PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS ACTIVE ELECTRIC INC. AND TINCHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 6).
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
Pending before the Court for decision is Defendants Active Electric Inc. and Jack E. Tincher’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 6. Therein, Defendants assert Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).- Plaintiffs are Robert Hivner, Jr., Thomas Reynolds, and Shane Brooks (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). Defendants are Active Electric, Inc. and Jack E. Tincher (hereinafter “Defendants”).
The present…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Tamayo v. BlagojevichCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Albert Robertson, Jr. v. Memphis Basketball, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2026
- Carmen v. Health Carousel, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2021
- Cooper v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2021
- Great American Insurance Company v. Johnson Controls, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2020
- Jeanetta Anderson v. Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, et al.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2026
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.