Legal Opinion
Copple v. City of Concordia, Kan.
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided February 3, 1993No. Civ. A. 90-1561-FGTPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THEIS, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Doc. 26. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his termination from employment with the City of Concordia, Kansas violated his due process rights. The parties’ requests for oral argument are denied. D.Kan. Rule 206(d).
The court is familiar with the standards governing the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that summary judgment is appropriate when the documentary evidence filed…
2Cases cited23 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
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Paul v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Berry v. General Motors Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1993
- Conyers v. Safelite Glass Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1993
- Tapia v. City of AlbuquerqueDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2014
- Castleberry v. Boeing Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1995
- Bartholomew v. City of Burlington, Kan.District Court, D. Kansas · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.