Legal Opinion

Champagne v. Gintick

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided August 8, 1994No. Civ. 3:94CV-29 (JAC)PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. WhitesellSupreme Court of Kansas · 2000
  2. Galloway v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  3. Smith v. MartensSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
  4. Vit v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Winik-Nystrup v. Manufacturers Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1998

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API