Paul Crawford v. Shamrock Coal Co., Inc. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 861 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Paul Crawford v. Shamrock Coal Co., Inc. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 861 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
51 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christopher Brown v. Michael Sheets (ca6, 2009-12-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher Brown v. Michael Sheets
6th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
First, even if trial counsel’s failure to interview L.H. and more adequately question K.H. demonstrates deficient performance, see, e.g., Landers v. Rees, 782 F.2d 1042 , at *4 (6th Cir.1985) (table) (explaining that a failure to interview the victim may be deficient), Brown did not present any facts that would have been discovered during those interviews that could have been used to impeach the victims during cross-examination, Elswick v. Parke, 861 F.2d 720, at *3-4 (6th Cir.1988) (table) (rejecting defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because he could not show any facts t…
cited Cited "see" State v. McGurk
Neb. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Jackson v. Dutton, 861 F.2d 720 (table), 1988 WL 114805 (unpublished opinion) (6th Cir. 1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1027 , 109 S. Ct. 1158 , 103 L.
discussed Cited "see" Ernest Jackson, Sr., Cross-Appellee v. Raymond Hoylman, Deputy U.S. Marshal Robert Bidwell, Deputy U.S. Marshal
6th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hill v. Marshall, 861 F.2d 720 , 1988 WL 117163 at * 2 (6th Cir.1988) (unpublished) (holding where plaintiff did not assert his case had been prejudiced by defendant's delay in filing the answer, and plaintiff did not give notice to anyone that an answer had not been filed, and defendant explained why he did not file a timely answer, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an answer to be filed). 24 After Jackson initially filed this case in an Ohio court on March 2, 1989, the case was removed to federal district court.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stychno v. Ohio Edison Co.
N.D. Ohio · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
When, as here, a “[djefendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is essentially a challenge to the legal basis of the complaint ... such a challenge is more appropriately viewed as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).” Moxley v. Vernot, 555 F.Supp. 554, 556 (S.D.Ohio 1982) (Rice, J.,); see also Drouillard v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 861 F.2d 720 (6th Cir.1988) (“Although styled as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), defendant’s motion is actually for judgment on the pleadings under Ru…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul Crawford
v.
Shamrock Coal Company, Inc. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
88-3883.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Nov 8, 1988.
861 F.2d 720
Unpublished

861 F.2d 720

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.
Paul CRAWFORD, Petitioner,
v.
SHAMROCK COAL COMPANY, INC.; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 88-3883.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Before KENNEDY and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

2

A review of the file indicates that the petition for review of the Benefits Review Board's August 30, 1988, decision was filed in this court on September 27, 1988. The petition was received by this court within the 60-day filing period. See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c); 20 C.F.R. Sec. 802.410; Danko v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 846 F.2d 366, 369 (6th Cir.1988). However, the petition for review was signed by the petitioner's wife rather than the petitioner. Parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654. An individual who is not an attorney cannot represent his or her spouse. Lindstrom v. Illinois, 632 F.Supp. 1535, 1537 (N.D.Ill.1986).

3

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed without prejudice to petitioner resubmitting a petition to review signed by himself or an attorney. Petitioner is cautioned that such petition for review must be received by this court on or before October 31, 1988.