Legal Opinion
Bays v. Hunter Savings Ass'n
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided May 13, 1982No. C-1-81-889PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN PART AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN PART
SPIEGEL, District Judge:
This case is before the Court upon motion of the plaintiffs for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 7), defendant’s memorandum in opposition (doc. 13), and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 14). By agreement of the parties, this matter will be treated as if it were before the Court on a motion by the defendant for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). It is defendant’s position that the motion for leave must be denied with regard to Count Five on the ground it fails to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Pereira v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Edward E. Westlake v. William Lucas, Sheriff of Wayne CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
- Parr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- United States v. Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Vera Lee Peacock and Harvey Coleman PeacockCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Michael E. Moss v. Morgan Stanley Inc., E. Jacques Courtois, Jr., Adrian Antoniu, and James M. Newman, Morgan Stanley Inc. And James M. NewmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Schacht v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Saine v. A.I.A., Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1984
- D & G Enterprises v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1983
- Seville Industrial MacHinery Corp. v. Southmost MacHinery Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.