Ness v. City of Bloomington
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:19-cv-02882
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ness v. City of Bloomington, Judge Montgomery amended the judgment, granting and denying motions while ruling for Ness on one city-code challenge.
Sally Ness, Michael O. Freeman, the City of Bloomington, Troy Meyer, and Mike Roepke. Ness prevailed on the specified as-applied challenge to Section 5.21(23), while the other claims were addressed through the stated dismissal and summary-judgment rulings.
What happened
In Ness v. City of Bloomington, the court amended an earlier judgment after a directive from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The order addressed motions involving Sally Ness’s claims against the defendants.
The court granted Michael O. Freeman’s motion to dismiss. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Bloomington, Troy Meyer, and Mike Roepke, allowing only Ness’s claim that Section 5.21(23) of Bloomington’s City Code was unconstitutional as applied to her photography and video recording about a public controversy at Smith Park.
The court also granted in part and denied in part Ness’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Montgomery granted summary judgment on that city-code claim and denied it as to all other claims.
The detailed version
- Ness v. City of Bloomington · No. 0:19-cv-02882
- Ann Montgomery
- Sept. 30, 2021
Nature of the order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to amend the judgment in accordance with a directive from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The order states the revised dispositions of three motions.
Motions to dismiss
The court granted Michael O. Freeman’s motion to dismiss.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Bloomington, Troy Meyer, and Mike Roepke. The motion was granted as to all claims except Ness’s claim that Section 5.21(23) of Bloomington’s City Code was unconstitutional as applied to her photography and video recording of matters relating to a public controversy at Smith Park.
Summary judgment
The court granted in part and denied in part Sally Ness’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion on her claim that Section 5.21(23) was unconstitutional as applied to her photography and video recording relating to the public controversy at Smith Park. It denied the motion as to all other claims.
Disposition
The order ends with the direction: “LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.