Champagne v. Gintick
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: *
The question presented is whether the plaintiff, Samantha Champagne, a resident of Connecticut, will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction preventing the Hartford Police from enforcing Connecticut’s “stalking” law, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53-181d, 1 against her.
This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against a public bus management company, one of its bus drivers (Steven Gintick), a police officer (Jessie Blardo), the City of Hartford, and the State’s Attorney for the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. WhitesellSupreme Court of Kansas · 2000
- Galloway v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Smith v. MartensSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
- Vit v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1996
- Winik-Nystrup v. Manufacturers Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.