Legal Opinion

Holick v. Burkhart

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided May 15, 2019No. Case No. 16-1188-JWBPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHN W. BROOMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*1372This matter comes before the court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 249.) The motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. (Docs. 249-1, 259, 260, 261, 262, 269.) For the reasons stated herein, the motion (Doc. 249) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Background

Defendant operates an abortion facility in Wichita. In 2012 and 2013, Plaintiff participated in several anti-abortion protests, including two near Defendant's residence. On March 17, 2013, Defendant filed a petition for a protection-from-stalking ("PFS") order against…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Lifewise Master Funding v. TelebankCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
  3. Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
  4. Nelson v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1980
  5. Marbourg v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Budd v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2021
  2. Carson v. Kramer & Frank, P.C.District Court, D. Kansas · 2021
  3. Marso v. SafeSpeed, LLCDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2020
  4. Reed Auto of Overland Park, LLC v. Landers McLarty Olathe KS, LLCDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2021
  5. Reed Auto of Overland Park, LLC v. Landers McLarty Olathe KS, LLCDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2021

2 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