§Why CasetextPricing

W/G Kristina 123 LLC et al v. Melena et al

RESPONSE

37 Cited authorities

  1. County of Sacramento v. Lewis

    523 U.S. 833 (1998)   Cited 9,058 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

  2. Terry v. Ohio

    392 U.S. 1 (1968)   Cited 39,004 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

  3. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit

    507 U.S. 163 (1993)   Cited 5,200 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

  4. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 1,221 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a substantive due process inquiry has "no proper place" in Takings doctrine, while distinguishing Nollan and Dolan as a special application of unconstitutional conditions doctrine for Takings

  5. E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health

    496 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,781 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII "must provide some specific description" of the protected activity

  6. Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp

    499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 793 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Indiana state law, "allegations of increased risk of future identity theft . . . [are not] a harm that the law is prepared to remedy"

  7. Warren v. City of Athens, Ohio

    411 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 505 times
    Holding that a violation of substantive due process "occurs when arbitrary and capricious government action deprives an individual of a constitutionally protected property interest"

  8. Forseth v. Village of Sussex

    199 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 560 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim that taking was for private purpose was not ripe because plaintiffs "failed to utilize their state law remedies" such as an appeal of the relevant state actors' decisions

  9. Doherty v. City of Chicago

    75 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 541 times
    Holding that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at state law because decisions of the zoning boards were subject to judicial review in Illinois state courts

  10. Armendariz v. Penman

    75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 360 times
    Holding that if the Takings Clause applies to an alleged violation, no substantive due process claim applies. "Substantive due process analysis has no place in contexts already addressed by explicit textual provisions of constitutional protection, regardless of whether the plaintiff's potential claims under those amendments have merit."

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 165,340 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."