Legal Opinion
Tesmer v. Granholm
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided March 31, 2000No. 00-10082PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ROBERTS, District Judge.
I. Introduction
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Complaint, filed March 2, 2000, further requests that this Court issue an Order declaring that P.A.1999 No. 200, violates the Plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the United…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Kowalski v. TesmerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ruth Bauer v. The State of Texas, the Presiding Judge of Probate Court Number 3 of Harris County, TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Tesmer v. GranholmCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Fuller v. TruncaleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
- Metz v. Supreme CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.