Legal Opinion
Kimball v. Town of Provincetown
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided January 26, 2016No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14391-WGYPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
YOUNG, District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Neal Kimball (“Kimball”) and Dieter Groll (“Groll”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) brought this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and related Massachusetts state laws to recover damages for alleged violations that took- place during the events surrounding their eviction from their office space. The Town of Prov-incetown (the “Town”), Officer Scott Cho-vanec (“Officer Chovanec”), and- Chief of Police Jeff Jaran (“Chief Jaran”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), moved to dismiss this case on statute of limitations grounds and…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jasaray Wilson v. Target CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- Kymberly Aleem Duncan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025