Legal Opinion
Dittmer v. County of Suffolk
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided February 21, 2002No. 9:96-cv-02206PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PLATT, District Judge.
Defendants County of Suffolk, et al. (“Suffolk”) move pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment of Plaintiffs’ Henry Dittmer’s, et al.’s (“Dittmer”) facial Equal Protection challenge. Dittmer cross-moves for summary judgment of that claim. Both parties have filed statements of material fact for which they feel there is no genuine issue for trial pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (“56.1 Statements”).
For the following reasons, Suffolk’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Dittmer’s Cross Motion for Summary…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sterbenz v. AttinaDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2002
- Levine v. McCabeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2005
- Dittmer v. County of SuffolkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Gherardi v. New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005