Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Steven Ondo v. City of Cleveland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided August 3, 2015No. 14-3527Published

1Concurring in the judgmentSutton, Circuit Judge

I join all but Parts III.B and III.C of Judge Batchelder’s thorough and persuasive opinion. In Part III.B, the majority holds that Ondo and Simcox preserved one of their equal protection arguments— namely, their claim that “the officers’ keeping them in their boxer shorts while transporting them to jail violated the Equal Protection Clause.” Supra at 607. I respectfully disagree. During oral argument, counsel for Ondo and Simcox conceded that all of their equal protection claims would fail if the plaintiffs’ affidavits were stricken. Oral Argument at 10:12-55, Ondo v. City of Cleveland (No.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. GibneyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  3. United States v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  4. United States v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API