Legal Opinion

James Chizmar v. Borough of Trafford

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided December 5, 2011No. 11-1885UnpublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.

I

Appellants James Chizmar (“Mr. Chizmar”) and Marianne Chizmar (“Mrs. Chizmar”) appeal from the District Court’s order granting the appellees’ motions for summary judgment. The Chizmars argue the District Court erred in concluding that: (1) no reasonable jury could conclude the appellants were retaliated against based on their constitutionally-protected conduct; (2) no official decision was adopted by the Borough to retaliate against the appellants; and (3) the elements of the Pennsylvania claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Hartman v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. Bielevicz v. DubinonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  5. Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Flanders v. DzuganDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Hinterberger v. Iroquois School DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. Ali, M. v. Amoroso, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. ROYER v. ROBERTSONDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API