Legal Opinion
Little v. Terhune
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided February 11, 2002No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-3165 (MLC)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COOPER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on (1) motion of plaintiff Henry T. Little for partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Rule 56”) and (2) crossmotion of defendants Jack Terhune (“Terhune”), Roy L. Hendricks (“Hendricks”), and Ronald V. Paice (“Paice”) for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. For the reasons stated below, we will deny plaintiffs motion, but grant defendants’ cross-motion.
BACKGROUND
For more than fifteen years, plaintiff has been incarcerated in the administrative segregation unit at New Jersey State…
2Cases cited49 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
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Madison v. RiterDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2003
- Montanye v. Wissahickon School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
- Cataldo v. MosesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- IBRAHIM v. EMRICHDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
- KADONSKY v. D'ILIODistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.