Legal Opinion · Dissent

Margo Hudson v. Bryan Coleman Eric Rodgers, City of Flint, Garnishee-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 14, 2003No. 01-1653Published

1DissentMoore, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the district court lacks *147subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant, Margo Hudson’s (“Hudson”), garnishment action against Defendant-Ap-pellee, the City of Flint (“City”). Contrary to the majority, I conclude that Hudson’s garnishment action is merely a post-judgment proceeding following her prior § 1983 action against Defendants-Appel-lees, Bryan Coleman and Eric Rodgers (collectively “police officers”), and that the garnishment action will not inject so many new issues as to become a functionally separate lawsuit. I…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Peacock v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Root v. WoolworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Sandlin v. Corporate Interiors Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
  5. Mike Yang v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998

1 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