Legal Opinion
Frank v. City of Akron
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided December 2, 1999No. 5:98CV2862PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
POLSTER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment challenging a campaign finance reform amendment to the City of Akron’s Charter passed by ballot initiative in November 1998 (Doc. No. 36). Defendant City of Akron has filed a response (Doc. No. 44), as have Intervening Defendants “Yes on Issue 11 Campaign” and Gregory D. Coleridge (Doc. No. 57), and Intervening Defendants Mike Parsons, Bruce Kilby, and Patricia Longville (Doc. No. 58). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment declaring Sections 5(C), (D),(G)(1) and (G)(2)…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Frank v. City of AkronCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- John v. City Of AkronCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002