Legal Opinion
Harris v. Bornhorst
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided January 14, 2008No. 06-3729PublishedCited by 143 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J., joined by McKINLEY, D.J.,
GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 523-27), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
OPINION
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Harris (“Harris”) filed suit against Defendants-Appellees Amanda Spies Bornhorst (“Spies”)1 and Tuscarawas County, Ohio *507(“Tuscarawas”) (collectively, the “defendants”),2 asserting claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective contract, pursuant to Ohio state law. The district court granted summary judgment in…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- 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
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by143 opinions
- Everson v. LeisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
- James Maben v. Troy ThelenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018
- Byron Halsey v. Frank PfeifferCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Sykes v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
- Ewing v. City of StocktonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
138 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.