Legal Opinion

Roniger v. McCall

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 1, 1999No. 97 Civ. 8009(RWS)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

Defendants H. Carl McCall (“McCall”), Comptroller of the State of New York, and Rosemary Scanlon (“Scanlon”) (collectively the “Defendants”) have moved, pursuant to Rule 56(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., for partial summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim brought by plaintiff George P. Roniger (“Roniger”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

Facts and Prior Proceedings

The facts, parties, and prior proceedings in this case have been set forth more fully in a prior opinion of the Court, familiarity with which is assumed. See…

2Cases cited18 opinions

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
Brady v. Town of ColchesterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
Margaret H. Wright v. Illinois Department of Children & Family ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
Barbara Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
Eugene A. BAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIMES MIRROR MAGAZINES, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991

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

3Cited by2 opinions

Smith v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2003
Roniger v. McCallDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000