Legal Opinion

Calia v. Werholtz

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided April 12, 2006No. 05-3201 JARPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBINSON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25). Defendants, Roger Wer-holtz, David McKune, and Steve Laun, seek summary judgment on plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case because defendants are entitled to immunity. As described more fully below, the Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

There are two statutory bases for federal…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Birch v. Atchison, Kansas, City ofDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2020
  2. Chubb v. KeckDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2020
  3. Frenzley (ID 104063) v. ClineDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2020
  4. Jenkins-Dyer v. DraytonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2015
  5. Sperry (ID 47031) v. WildermuthDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API