Legal Opinion
Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided March 31, 2018No. 2:10–cv–02414–KJM–KJNPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
After a lengthy jury trial, the Hardesty and Schneider plaintiffs obtained a verdict *1020exceeding $100 million against defendant Sacramento County and three defendant county officials based on defendants' actions the jury determined caused the closure of the Hardestys' sand and gravel mine and violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law ("Renewed JMOL Mot."), ECF No. 537, and Motion for a New Trial ("New Trial Mot."), ECF No. 538, are before the court. Plaintiffs oppose the motions, ECF…
2Cases cited76 opinions
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Taylor v. SturgellSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bullseye Glass Co. v. BrownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2019