Seals v. City of Lancaster
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GOLDEN, District Judge.
Defendants City of Lancaster and Christopher Laser move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). They argue: 1) plaintiffs claim for fourth amendment violations fail as a matter of law; 2) defendant Laser is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) plaintiffs claims against the City of Lancaster fail as a matter of law; 4) plaintiffs state law claims fail as a matter of law; and 5) plaintiffs claims for punitive damages fail as a matter of law.
After consideration of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Scott v. HenrichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Curley v. KlemCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Scott v. Sunoco Logistics Partners, LPDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
- Nykiel v. Borough of SharpsburgDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Glenn v. RaymourDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Oberdorf v. Amazon.Com, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- Grant v. WinikDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.