Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kinkus v. Village of Yorkville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided August 13, 2008No. 07-3483Unpublished

1DissentClay, Circuit Judge

While I agree with the majority that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support Plaintiff Robert Kinkus’ (“Kinkus”) Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, I do not share the majority’s view that Defendants, James Popp (“Popp”) and Gary Anderson (“Anderson”), should have been granted qualified immunity on Kinkus’ First Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim. I am also troubled by the majority’s sua sponte decision to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Kinkus on his municipal liability claim against the Village of York-ville (the “Village”), given…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Scott v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. Hope v. PelzerSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

31 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