Legal Opinion
Pratt v. Ottum
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided November 27, 2000PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRudman, J.
[¶ 1] The individually named defendants, John Ottum, Daniel Thompson, and Peter Quinn, appeal from the order of the Superior Court (Lincoln County, Mar sano, J.), which denied their motion for a summary judgment on Count X of Robert S. Pratt’s amended complaint, alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants assert that there are no disputes as to material facts and that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on their defenses of qualified immunity and legislative immunity. Finding no material facts in dispute regarding the qualified immunity…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking UnlimitedSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Gilbert v. HomarSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Patrick J. O'COnnOr v. Robert W. SteevesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-SabatCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
- Morse Bros., Inc. v. WebsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
- Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
- Schindler v. NilsenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
- Rice v. City of BiddefordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.