Legal Opinion
White River Amusement Pub. v. Town of Hartford, Vt.
District Court, D. Vermont
Decided December 15, 2005No. 1:02-cv-320PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Papers 42, 58, and 78)
MURTHA, District Judge.
The Town of Hartford, Vermont, the Selectboard of Hartford, Vermont, and Hunter Rieseberg, Todd Steadman, Leonard Berliner, Gayle Ottman, Ray Cerasoli, Richard Ballou, and Joseph Estey, individually (“Defendants”), request a grant of summary judgment on all claims brought by Plaintiff, White River Amusement Pub, Inc. (“Plaintiff’), under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff, in turn, requests that the Court grant summary judgment on its claims in their entirety against Defendants. For the reasons stated herein,…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Frisenda v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MALVERNEDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2011
- Mangino v. Incorporated Village of PatchogueDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- White River Amusement Pub, Inc. v. Town of HartfordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- White River Amusement Pub, Inc. v. Town Of HartfordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Kaminski v. AndersonDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2011