Legal Opinion
Heaton v. City of Princeton
District Court, W.D. Kentucky
Decided September 16, 1997No. Civ.A. 5:96-CV-139(R)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUSSELL, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
FACTS AND CLAIMS
Plaintiffs Rodney and Margaret Heaton have brought suit against the City of Princeton, Kentucky, the City Council of the City of Princeton, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the various individual members of those entities. Beginning in 1989 and continuing through 1991, plaintiffs purchased several tracts of land in the city of Princeton…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Zahra v. Town of SoutholdCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Norbert C. Pearson, Also Known as Spike v. City of Grand Blanc, J. Larry TomlinsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Bigelow v. Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RodriguezDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2002