Creed Arnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Creed Arnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Guttman v. Khalsa (ca10, 2012-01-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guttman v. Khalsa (2×) also: Cited "see"
10th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
To this end, defendants point to Alexander, 98 F.3d at 1341, but that case provides no support on this issue.
cited Cited "see" Kovacs v. University of Toledo
N.D. Ohio · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).
cited Cited "see" Kovacs v. University of Toledo
N.D. Ohio · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Louis Thomas Bauer, Jr.
Bankr. N.D. Ohio · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mich. Sept. 8, 2022)(“The Sixth Circuit case of [Chavis] holds that late filed claims in a Chapter 13 should not be allowed ‘so that the efficacy of the plan may be determined in light of the debtor’s assets, debts and foreseeable earnings.’” (citing Chavis, 47 F.3d at 824 ); see also, United States v. Simon (In re Burnham, Connolly, Oesterle and Henry), 98 F.3d 1341 , 1996 WL 580475 at *4 , 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26634 at *11 (6th Cir. Oct. 8, 1996)(“In a Chapter 13 case where notice was received, this circuit seems to have held that tardiness in the filing of a proof of claim bars …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Luteyn v. Commissioner of Social Security
W.D. Mich. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Colwell v. Chafer, 98 F.3d 1341 , 1996 WL 557773, *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1996) (per curiam) (Martin, Krupansky, Daughtrey) ("[T]he Commissioner must give appropriate weight to lay testimony that is supported by the objective medical evidence. * * * Here, however, the lay testimony, in the form of letters submitted by Colwell’s family and friends, is not supported by the objective medical evidence.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Douglas v. Mitzelfeld's, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Boyd, 653 F.2d at 1178 (evidence regarding the treatment of other workers is relevant to establish pretext); see also E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 F.3d 1341 , No. 95-3019, 1996 WL 557800 (6th Cir. Sept.30, 1996) (table).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Creed Arnett
v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
95-6073.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 9, 1996.
98 F.3d 1341
Unpublished

98 F.3d 1341

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.
Creed ARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-6073.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1996.

Before: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and BATCHELDER.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

1

Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., appeals from the jury verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff, Creed Edward Arnett, and the district court's subsequent denial of defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.

2

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying defendant's post-trial motions.

3

As the reasons why the motions should have been denied have been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning set out by that court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed July 13, 1995.