Legal Opinion
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Loral Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided April 20, 1994No. 5:92 CV 2391PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DOWD, District Judge.
Before the Court are three motions for summary judgment: 1) plaintiffs’ motion (Docket No. 46); 2) defendant Loral Corporation’s motion (Docket No. 61); and 3) the combined motion of defendants Aircraft Braking System Corporation and K & F Industries (Docket No. 62). Supporting and opposing memorandums have been filed for each motion. For the reasons discussed below, each motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1992, the above-captioned action was filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospáce…
2Cases cited25 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cullen v. EH Friedrich Co., Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
- International Union v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1996
- Barbara Fletcher v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018
- Fletcher v. Honeywell International, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2017
- Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS USA, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.