Legal Opinion
Kinkus v. Village of Yorkville
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided March 13, 2007No. CS-05-930PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MARBLEY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on two Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Robert Kinkus (“Kinkus”) and five Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants. Additionally, Defendants have filed three Motions to Strike.
In Defendant Officer James Popp’s (“Officer Popp”) first Motion for Summary-Judgment, he asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that Officer Popp violated Plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment rights. 1 In Plaintiffs first Motion for Summary Judgment, he states…
2Cases cited47 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kwame Ajamu v. City of ClevelandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Kinkus v. Village of YorkvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Stillwagon v. City of DelawareDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
- Gillespie v. City of Battle CreekDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.