Legal Opinion
Arceo v. City of Junction City, Kansas
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided January 17, 2002No. 00-1320-JTMPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARTEN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the separate motion of each defendant for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a single response addressing all four summary judgment motions. The City of Junction City (“City”) and all defendants have replied. On that record, the court considers this matter fully briefed and ripe for determination. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion of each defend dant.
I. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts
Plaintiff, Pete Arceo (hereinafter “Ar-ceo”), brings three causes of action: 1) a violation of 42…
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
- West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Nielander v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Estate of Randolph v. City of WichitaCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2020
- Estate of Thurman v. City of MilwaukeeDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2002
- Gilliam v. USD 244 School DistrictDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2005
- Lane v. JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.