§Why CasetextPricing

Sloan et al v. BorgWarner Flexible Benefits Plans et al

REPLY to Response re MOTION for Order Certifying Summary Judgment Order for Interlocutory Appeal

7 Cited authorities

  1. Reese v. CNH America LLC

    574 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 351 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even though the CBA granted retirees life-time health-care benefits upon retirement, it did not resolve the scope, of those benefits because "the relevant CBA provisions suggest[ed] that the parties contemplated reasonable modifications"

  2. Yolton v. El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co.

    435 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2006)   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an injunction even though it “will place a substantial expense on the defendants” in part because “the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction,” including the possibility that “retirees [would] be unable to afford prescriptions or doctor visits”

  3. Northwestern Ohio Adm'rs v. Walcher Fox

    270 F.3d 1018 (6th Cir. 2001)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that handwritten notations on a printed agreement were not valid modifications of the contract where the parties failed to further manifest their intentions

  4. Newsome v. Young Supply Co.

    873 F. Supp. 2d 872 (E.D. Mich. 2012)   Cited 47 times
    Holding "the role of interlocutory appeal is diminished when a case is nearing trial and large expenditures have already been made"

  5. Witmer v. Acument Global Techs., Inc.

    694 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding nothing inconsistent in promising continuous health insurance for the life of the retiree but reserving the right at the same time to take those benefits away

  6. SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. REP. STEVE DRIEHAUS

    Consolidated Case No. 1:10-cv-720 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2011)

    Consolidated Case No. 1:10-cv-720. November 2, 2011 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL TIMOTHY BLACK, Magistrate Judge On August 1, 2011, this Court entered its Order Denying Plaintiff Susan B. Anthony List's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defamation (Doc. 66), whereupon Plaintiff timely moved this Court to certify its Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Upon careful consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's

  7. Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions

    28 U.S.C. § 1292   Cited 22,918 times   203 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders