Legal Opinion

Kurt Dixon v. Mike Lowery

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 16, 2002No. 01-1491, 01-1632PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Mike Lowery and Tim Calhoun (appellants) appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. They argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit by Kurt Dixon and the Big Mamou, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Dixon”) because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right when they helped a private party acquire possession of the Big Mamou — a restaurant that had been owned and operated by Dixon — and that their acts did not constitute an unreasonable seizure of property under color of state law. Dixon…

2Cases cited17 opinions

City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
Pembaur v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

Kurt Dixon Big Mamou, Inc. v. Mike Lowery, Individually and in His Official Capacity Tim Calhoun, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Louie Caudell, in His Official Capacity as Chief of the Little Rock Police Department City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Kurt Dixon Big Mamou, Inc. v. Mike Lowery, Individually and in His Official Capacity Tim Calhoun, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Louie Caudell, in His Official Capacity as Chief of the Little Rock Police Department, City of Little Rock, ArkansasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002