Legal Opinion
Kopacz v. Hopkinsville Surface & Storm Water Utility
District Court, W.D. Kentucky
Decided May 14, 2010No. 3:09-cv-00203PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Chief Judge.
This matter having come before the Court upon Defendants, Hopkinsville Surface and Storm Water Utility and the City of Hopkinsville’s, Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings Pending State Court Litigation (DN 6). Plaintiffs, David and Stacy Kopacz, have filed a response (DN 7). Defendants have filed a reply (DN 8). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendants Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, David and Stacy Kopacz, have filed suit against…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Wright v. Linebarger Googan Blair & Sampson, LLPDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2011
- Coalition for Clean Air v. VWR International, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013
- Autumn Acres Senior Village, Inc. v. Village of MayvilleDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020
- BLC Lexington SNF, LLC v. CraigDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2020
- Boyd v. MartinezDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2022
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.