Berg v. Village of Scarsdale et al
| Robert J. Berg |
| Village of Scarsdale and Village of Scarsdale Police Department |
| 7:2018cv01002 |
| February 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
ORDER: Accordingly, Defendants are hereby directed to submit a proposed judgment prepared in accordance with the Second Circuit's instructions by January 19, 2022. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff to his address listed on ECF and to show proof of service on the docket. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 12/20/2021) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
61
AMENDED CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 60 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Village of Scarsdale, Village of Scarsdale Police Department, against Robert J. Berg; in favor of Robert J. Berg, against Village of Scarsdale, Village of Scarsdale Police D epartment, in the amount of $ 1.00. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Amended Opinion and Order dated November 16, 2020, in sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to the extent it asserts a claim that Defendants violated the First Amendment by selectively enforcing the signposting laws against political relative to other forms of speech and DENIES Plaintiff's motion as to the remaining claims. The Court GRANTS Defendants ' Cross-Motion to the extent that the ordinances are not facially unconstitutional under either the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the First Amendment but DENIES their motion to the extent they claim that their content-based e nforcement was consistent with the First Amendment; judgment is entered in Defendants' favor to the extent that the ordinances are not unconstitutional under either the First or Fourteenth Amendments, and in Plaintiff's favor on his First A mendment Claim for selective enforcement in the amount of $1 of nominal damages. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 11/17/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
60
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to the extent it asserts a claim that Defendants violated the First Amendment by selectively enforcing the signposting laws against political relative to other forms of speech and DENIES Plaintiff's motion as to the remaining claims. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Cross-Motion to the extent that the ordinances are not facially unconstitutional under either the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Cl ause or the First Amendment but DENIES their motion to the extent they claim that their content-based enforcement was consistent with the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court respectfully directs the Clerk of the Court to: (1) enter judgment in Defendants' favor to the extent that the ordinances are not unconstitutional under either the First or Fourteenth Amendments, and in Plaintiff's favor on his First Amendment Claim for selective enforcement in the amount of $1 o f nominal damages; (2) amend the Judgment accordingly; and (3) mail a copy of this amended opinion and order to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF and show service on the docket. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 11/16/2020) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert J. Berg's application for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's submissions and considered the arguments m ade by both parties at a show cause hearing held on February 6, 2018 at the United States Courthouse, 300 Quarropas St., White Plains, NY 10601. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's application is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that Defen dants are enjoined from enforcing the provisions of Section 256-1 of the Scarsdale Village Code or taking any other actions against Plaintiff and other persons with respect to posting political lawn signs in the Village of Scarsdale right of way in front of private homes, so long as said political lawn signs pose no safety or traffic hazards. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 2/6/2018) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
