Legal Opinion

Hasenmeier-McCarthy v. Rose

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided January 7, 1998No. C2-97-163PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

SARGUS, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Kathryn Hasenmeier-McCarthy, an Ohio prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants 1 in their official and individual capacities, for alleged violations of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) and plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment (Doe. 16). For the reasons adduced below, the defendants’ motion for…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Tate v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  2. Africa v. HornDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. (PC) Bowell v. California Department of CorrectionsDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
  4. Cannon v. MoteAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
  5. Hodges v. StradaDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2025

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

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

Powered by the Exa API