Legal Opinion
Kopec v. Tate
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 21, 2002No. 2:02-cr-00430PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOYNER, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants, Officer Tyrone Tate (“Defendant” or “Officer Tate”) and Township of Whitemarsh. In this case, Plaintiff Michael Kopec (“Plaintiff”) brought a civil rights claim and state law claims against Defendant Officer Tyrone Tate and a civil rights claim against Defendant Township of Whitemarsh. Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his rights were violated pursuant to the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, Plaintiff…
2Cases cited9 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
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Schmidt v. CreedonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Schmidt v. CreedonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011