Legal Opinion
Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided September 1, 2000No. 99-1030PublishedCited by 221 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GILMAN, Circuit Judge.
The owners of a bar brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that frequent “bar checks” by the local police constituted harassment that deprived the owners of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In replying to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the owners filed a non-substantive response that requested the district court to deny the motion for reasons that they asserted would be set forth in a subsequent filing. Although it did not grant the owners’ request, the district court permitted the owners additional time…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Christine Evans v. Technologies Applications & Service CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Ovall Dale Kendall v. The Hoover CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by221 opinions
- United States v. Juan Reyes, Juan A. Acevedo, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- CenTra, Inc. v. EstrinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Fannie Ball (02-6289) Stephen Heiser (02-6311) v. Union Carbide Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Yeschick v. MinetaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Estate of Seth Michael Zakora v. Troy ChrismanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022
216 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.