Legal Opinion
Shy v. Navistar International Corp.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided February 6, 2013No. 3:92cv333PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING THE SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT COMMITTEE OF THE NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION RETIREE SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PROGRAM’S MOTION TO INTERVENE (DOC. #394) UNDER RULE 24 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; SAID INTERVENOR IS ORDERED TO FILE A PLEADING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 24(c), IN ORDER TO BRING ITS MOTION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE’S PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERVENTION.
WALTER H. RICE, District Judge.
The Supplemental Benefit Committee of the Navistar International Transportation Corporation Retiree Supplemental Benefit Program (the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Michigan State Afl-Cio v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Sierra Club v. EspyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Scotty Grubbs, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Proposed Intervenor/appellant v. Stephen H. NorrisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- American National Property & Casualty Co. v. StutteDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2014
- JobsOhio v. EmKey Energy, LLC, et al.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2025
- Truesdell v. FriedlanderDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2020