Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

87-4145 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 87-4145 Visitors: 35
Filed: Mar. 02, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 841 F.2d 1126 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. William T. FLETCHER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, Edward Ackerson; Michael R. Blum; Herbert Hayes; David F. Burke; Gary W.J. Bevins; Bailey Jerome Hayes; Gene H. Gregg, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert A. WOOD, et
More

841 F.2d 1126

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
William T. FLETCHER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs,
Edward Ackerson; Michael R. Blum; Herbert Hayes; David F.
Burke; Gary W.J. Bevins; Bailey Jerome Hayes;
Gene H. Gregg, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Robert A. WOOD, et al., Defendants,
Norman A. Murdock; Robert E. Taft, II; Joseph M. DeCourcy,
Commissioners of Hamilton County, Defendants-Appellants,
Simon L. Leis, Jr., Sheriff of Hamilton County, Defendant. (87-4145)
Deidra Hair, Presiding Judge, Hamilton County Municipal
Court Judges, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants. (87-4150)

Nos. 87-4145, 87-4150.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 2, 1988.

Before KEITH, BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., and RYAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Plaintiffs-appellees move to dismiss this consolidated appeal from the district court's order of November 10, 1987, which granted their motion to enforce a consent order, as modified. Defendants-appellants Hamilton County Commissioners and intervenors-appellants Hamilton County Municipal Judges have responded in opposition.

2

The record in this matter shows that the parties and the court contemplated further proceedings, culminating in a final order modifying the consent judgment. Accordingly,

3

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer