# Fritz v. Charter Township of Com-Stock

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 28, 2010 · 592 F.3d 718

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598389

## Case

- **Full name:** Sue FRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COM-STOCK, a Public Body; Tim Hudson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Supervisor for the Charter Township of Comstock, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 28, 2010
- **Citations:** 592 F.3d 718; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1877; 2010 WL 307899
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ryan
- **Judges:** Ryan, Cole, Clay
- **Cited by:** 743 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598389

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an allegation that Township officials had threatened to revoke a resident’s special- use permit was sufficient to show an adverse action at the pleading stage
- holding that plaintiff alleged facts plausibly suggesting that the “adverse actions were motivated, at least in part, by her protected conduct,” sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.
- finding that defendant’s statements that there was a neighborhood petition against plaintiff and that plaintiff violated township ordinances did not constitute adverse action
- noting that a “ ‘legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’ need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss” (quoting Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009))
- stating that factual allegations in the complaint must give sufficient notice to the defendant

## Opinion text

RYAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion, precisely for the reasons stated by District Judge Robert Holmes Bell in his solidly reasoned and well-written opinion holding that the plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim of a violation of her constitutional rights.
I would affirm the district court’s judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598389. Public record. Not legal advice.