Shelton et al v. Rutherford County, Tennessee et al
| Steve Shelton, William Albert Shelton, Jennifer R. Shelton, Mimi P. Shelton, Ben A. Shelton, III, Paul Andrew Shelton, Kayli Virginia Shelton, Blackman Road Properties, LLC and Carol D. Shelton |
| Rutherford County, Tennessee and James C. Cope |
| 3:2009cv00318 |
| April 3, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Rutherford |
| Juliet E. Griffin |
| Thomas Wiseman |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
118
ORDER: Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 94 is hereby DENIED, and Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment 95 is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and this matter is DISMISSED. It is so ORDERED. This is a final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 from which an appeal may lie. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 1/18/11. (tmw)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER: This Court entered an Order on September 8, 2009 (Doc. No. 41) denying Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims premised upon violation of their substantive due process rights, on the basis that the Chancery Cour t for Rutherford County, Tennessee had already made a determination that Defendants had violated Plaintiffs' rights under § 1983. In light of the ruling of the Tennessee Court of Appeals on the matter of Shelton v. Rutherford County, Tenn., No. M2008-02596-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 3425638 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2009), that portion of this Court's prior order 41 is hereby VACATED. To be clear, only that portion of the prior Order (as discussed in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying t hat Order, Doc. No. 40) denying the motion to dismiss the substantive due process claims on preclusion grounds is vacated. The parties, if they choose, may file dispositive motions to address the questions raised herein, as follows: 1. Either or both parties may file a dispositive motion as to the remaining issues in this consolidated case by or before April 16, 2010. If the Plaintiffs choose to file such a motion, they shall file one consolidated motion by all Plaintiffs in both the lead and co nsolidated cases. 2. Responses shall be filed within thirty days of the filing of any dispositive motion. 3. No reply briefs shall be filed without first obtaining the Court's permission. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 3/18/10. (tmw)
|
|
Filing
41
*PARTIALLY VACATED. See Order 90 for details.* ORDER: For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defts' motions to dismiss the Shelton Pltfs' 25 and the Developer Pltfs' 27 claims are DENIED IN PART AND GRA NTED IN PART. Specifically, the motions are GRANTED insofar as they seek dismissal of the state-law claims. The Pltfs' respective negligence claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the inverse-condemnation claim, asserted by the Shelton Pltfs only, is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In all other respects the motions are DENIED. It is so ORDERED. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate Judge for further case management as necessary. The parties are advised that the Court would be inclined to consider a motion to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal pending before the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 9/8/09. (tmw) Modified text on 3/18/2010 (tmw).
|
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 Tennessee Middle 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.
