Lovelace Case

City seeks to dismiss 10 of 11 counts in Lovelace lawsuit

Quincy police detective Adam Gibson testifies March 8 in Curtis Lovelace's second trial, in which Lovelace was acquitted of first-degree murder. Gibson is one of the defendants named in a lawsuit brought by Lovelace and his family. | H-W File Photo/Michael Kipley
By Herald-Whig
Posted: Jul. 12, 2017 9:15 am

QUINCY -- Attorneys representing the city of Quincy and personnel of the Quincy Police Department in the civil rights lawsuit brought by Curtis Lovelace and his family are seeking to have 10 of the 11 counts dismissed.

Filed Tuesday, the motion seeks to dismiss on the counts for "failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted."

The 11-count lawsuit filed in May alleges that Curtis Lovelace was deprived due process and was the subject of malicious prosecution, as well as deprived of his constitutional rights.

The former Adams County assistant state's attorney and former Quincy School Board president was acquitted of first-degree murder by a Sangamon County jury on March 10 in connection with the Feb. 14, 2006, death of his first wife, Cory Lovelace. An Adams County jury was unable to reach a verdict after two days of deliberations in February 2016.

The suit names Quincy Detective Adam Gibson, Chief Rob Copley, Sgt. John Summers, Detective Anjanette Biswell, unknown Quincy police officers, Adams County State's Attorney Gary Farha, Adams County Coroner Jim Keller, the city of Quincy and Adams County as defendants.

Also plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Lovelace's sons Logan and Lincoln and his wife, Christine, on behalf of minor son Larson.

The suit did not specify a monetary amount they are seeking.

In the city's response to the initial complaint, Elizabeth Barton, one of the attorneys representing the city from Ancel, Glick, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer PC, said the police personnel are entitled to qualified immunity in that their actions did not violate any of the Lovelaces' "clearly established constitutional rights," and that the city is not liable for an "injury resulting from an act or omission of its employee when the employee is not liable."

The county previously responded to the suit saying that Farha and Keller are "provided absolute immunity" in the performance of the functions of the judicial system.