Legal Opinion

Longmoor v. Nilsen

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided September 26, 2003No. 3:02CV1595 (JBA)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ruling on Motion of Defendants Laboy, Hazen, Sweeney, and Tolomeo for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. # 33] and Motions of Defendants Fox, Nilsen, Town of Barkhamsted and Barkhamsted Inland Wetland Commission to Join [Doc. #41-1] and to Dismiss [Doc. # 45]

ARTERTON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Lorraine Longmoor and Lyndsey Keene assert in their amended complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Connecticut common law, that defendants deprived them of equal protection and substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, subjected them to a…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Hudson v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. County of Sacramento v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Longmoor v. NilsenDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2004
  2. Longmoor v. NilsenDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API