Legal Opinion
Achtien v. City of Deadwood
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided February 24, 1993No. Civ. 92-5009PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BATTEY, District Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs Donald Achtien and Louise Achtien (Achtiens) bring this action against the City of Deadwood; Thomas Harmon (Harmon), Assistant Attorney General of the State of South Dakota; and Paul Putz (Putz), Director/Deputy of the South Dakota Historical Preservation Center. Achtiens allege violations of their civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Achtiens’ second amended complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief based upon an alleged violation of their procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tri County Landfill Ass'n v. Brule CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Conner v. MiccicheDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2025
- Tri County Landfill Ass'n v. Brule CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- WG Woodmere LLC v. The Incorporated Village of WoodsburghDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2024