Legal Opinion

Masetta v. National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1953No. 33203Published

1Opinion of the CourtMiddleton, J.

The plaintiff asserts that he brings this action not for himself alone but for himself and others (unidentified) having a common interest in *311the subject matter of the cause of action. We must, therefore, consider the petition as an effort to institute and maintain a class action.

By way of equitable relief plaintiff seeks to enforce an employment contract by injunctive order directing the defendant to discharge its maintenance and production employees and to re-employ plaintiff and “other said employees.” This amounts to an effort to procure specific performance.

The rendering of unique…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Arthur v. OakesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
  2. Poet Clinton Railroad v. Cleveland & Toledo RailroadOhio Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Davies v. Columbia Gas & Electric Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Beatty v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Chambers v. DavisMississippi Supreme Court · 1922

5 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