A. et al v. Torrington et al
| M. A. and J. A. |
| City of Torrington and Torrington Board of Education |
| 3:2010cv01890 |
| December 1, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Litchfield |
| Janet Bond Arterton |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 |
| None |
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
85
RULING: granting in limited part and denying in large part 70 Motion for Equitable Relief; granting in part in the amount of $55,950 in attorney's fees and $700 in costs 72 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 4/3/2014. (Rodko, B.)
|
|
Filing
65
RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: granted as to Counts One, Two and Three, but is denied as to Count Four 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; denied as to Counts One, Two and Three, but is granted as to Count Four 58 Motion for Judgment. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 9/10/2013. (Rodko, B.)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER: Defendants' Motion 26 to Dismiss is GRANTED, Plaintiffs' Motion 32 for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs' arguments were considered, and the Recommended Ruling 35 is ADOPTED, with the modification that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state constitutional claims. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 09/10/2012. (Flagg, K.)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
