Legal Opinion
Agomo v. Fenty
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 1, 2007No. 03-CV-813PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Senior Judge:
Appellants Emelike U. Agomo and Auto Ward, Inc. filed a complaint against the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (“ATE System”) established by D.C.Code § 50-2209.01 (2001) et seq. violates the guarantees of due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. In essence, the ATE System detects moving violations under the District’s traffic laws through the use of photographs taken by automated cameras installed at various locations throughout the District. The trial court denied the District’s initial…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Potomac Development Corp. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- City of Davenport v. SeymourSupreme Court of Iowa · 2008
- Myron Dennis Behm, Burton J. Brooks, Bobby Lee Langston, David Leon Brodsky, Jeffrey R. Olson, and Geoff Tate Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2019
- City of Sioux City v. Michael Jon JacobsmaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2015
- Convit v. WilsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.