Legal Opinion
Sherman v. American Cyanamid Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided February 26, 1998No. 1:97-cr-00185PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GWIN, District Judge.
On December 1,1997, defendant American Cyanamid Company filed a motion for summary judgment [Doc. 42]. In its motion, defendant American Cyanamid says no material evidence supports plaintiff Caryl Sherman’s claim for age or sex discrimination under federal and state law. Plaintiff Caryl Sherman filed her response on December 23, 1997 [Doc. 66]. Upon review of the record as a whole, the Court grants defendant’s motion for judgment for the reasons that follow.
I
Plaintiff Caryl Sherman sues her former employer, defendant American Cyanamid.…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Duggins v. Steak 'N Shake, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Clevidence v. Wayne Savings Community BankDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
- Marano v. Aircraft Braking Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
- Rebecca K. Duggins, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee, Morganroth & Morganroth Steven Schiller James R. Estep, Attorneys-Appellees (98-4289) v. Steak 'N Shake, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999