Legal Opinion
Grupo Condumex, S.A. De C v. v. SPX Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided September 1, 2004No. 3:99CV7316, 3:99CV7502PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
CARR, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are three motions: plaintiff Grupo Condumex’s motion for partial summary judgment as to attorney’s fees (Doc. 149); defendant Dana Corporation’s and plaintiff Grupo Condu-mex’s motion for protective order (Doc. 153); and defendant SPX .Corporation’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 172). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs partial summary judgment motion will be denied, the motion for a protective order will be granted in part and denied in part, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.
BACKGROUND
The details of this…
2Cases cited19 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
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Cleveland Clinic Health System—East Region v. Innovative Placements, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2012
- Grupo Condumex, S.A. De C v. v. SPX Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- GPH Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Redwood Holdings, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2024
- Graham v. PeltzDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2021
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.