Legal Opinion
Lipsky v. Cronin
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided March 6, 2023No. 5:22-cv-05039Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION DANIEL LIPSKY, 5:22-CV-5039-LLP Plaintiff, VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN NATE CRONIN, BILL WAINMAN, PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MICHAEL CLOSE; and CITY OF HOT DISMISS SPRINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA, Defendants. Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff, Mr. Daniel Lipsky’s, complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that was filed by Defendants Nate Cronin, Bill Wainman, Michael Close and City of Hot Springs, South Dakota. (Doc. 6). For the following…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- County of Sacramento v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.