Legal Opinion
Brockstedt v. Sussex County Council
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided May 11, 2011No. C.A. 10-335-MPTPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THYNGE, United States Magistrate Judge.
1. INTRODUCTION
The court now considers cross motions for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) filed by Chase and Kelly Brockstedt (“plaintiffs”) and Vance Phillips, George Cole, Joan Deaver, Michael Vincent, and Samuel Wilson, individually and in their capacity as members of County Council (“defendants”). 1 The parties completed briefing on these issues on February 11, 2011. 2 For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED, and defen dants’ motion for partial summary judgment…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- John K. Rains v. Cascade Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Riverside Acquisition Group LLC v. Vertis Holdings, Inc. (In re Vertis Holdings, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2015
- Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2014