MICHAELS BLDG. CO. v. AMERITRUST CO., N.A.

Nos. 86-4148, 86-4149, 87-3157 and 87-3197.

848 F.2d 674 (1988)

MICHAELS BUILDING COMPANY, et al.; Barbara L. Abbe; and Joseph L. Sigler, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.; National City Bank of Akron, et al.; Centran Bank of Akron, et al.; Bank One of Akron, N.A., et al.; Harter Bank & Trust Co.; and the United National Bank & Trust Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided May 17, 1988.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dale A. Bernard, Daniel J. McGown (argued), Alan G. Segedy, Akron, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants in Nos. 86-4148 to 86-4151.

John W. Solomon, Linda B. Kersker, Akron, Ohio, for Phoenix Nat. Bank and D. Jones.

Richard E. Guster, Douglas L. Talley, George Rooney, Jr. (argued), Roetzel & Andress, Akron, Ohio, for Bank One.

Sonia C. Vallorz, Roetzel & Andress, Akron, Ohio, for appellee-cross-appellant.

Dennis M. Kelly (argued), Jeffrey J. Baker, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Leslee W. Miralke, Matthew R. Goldman, Cleveland, Ohio, for Ameritrust et al.

Robert J. Hoerner (argued), Stephen Q. Giblin, Cleveland, Ohio, for National City Bank of Akron.

Dale A. Bernard, Andrew J. Michaels, Daniel J. McGown (argued), Akron, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants in Nos. 87-3157 and 87-3197.

S. Stuart Eilers, Thompson, Hine & Flory, Joseph J. Magri, Cleveland, Ohio, for other appellees.

Barbara J. Arison, Wm. J. Wallace, Roetzel & Andress, Akron, Ohio, for Soc. Bank of E. Ohio.

Thomas P. Mulligan, Kathleen B. Burke (argued), Susan Z. Haller, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio, for Centran.

Edward P. Weber, Jr., Randolph L. Snow (argued), Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbough, Canton, Ohio, for United Nat. Bank and Trust.

Before KEITH, MARTIN and RYAN, Circuit Judges.


KEITH, Circuit Judge.

This group of consolidated appeals involved a series of nearly identical rulings by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in a tetralogy of class actions asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Sherman Act and Ohio law. Appellants challenge three of the district court's rulings: (1) the dismissal of their RICO and state...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases