Legal Opinion
Soto v. City of Newark
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 29, 1999No. Civ.A. 98-5582PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLIN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiffs, Jorge and Jessica Soto (the “Sotos”) for partial summary judgment as to liability pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and on the cross-motion of Defendants, the City of Newark and the Newark Municipal Court (collectively, “Defendants”), for summary judgment to dismiss the Complaint, with prejudice pursuant to Rule 56. The Court has considered the matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated below, the Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted in part and denied in…
2Cases cited22 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
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- MEYER, Joseph W., Appellant v. RIEGEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION and James River Corporation of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Corona v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2008
- Santiago v. City of VinelandDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Mycal L. Ashby v. Warrick County School CorpCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
- Borngesser v. Jersey Shore Med. Ctr.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001
- In re the Custody & Guardianship of La'Asia S.New York City Family Court · 2002
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.