NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS et al
| National trust for historic preservation in the united states |
| United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nancy Ward |
| City of New Orleans and Louisiana division of administration, office of facility planning and control |
| 2:2009cv05460 |
| August 7, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Out of State |
| Eldon E. Fallon |
| Joseph C. Wilkinson |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports |
| 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
150
ORDER & REASONS denying 139 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 6/14/10. (ala, )
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER & REASONS denying 58 Motion for Summary Judgment by National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States; granting 97 Motion for Summary Judgment by Louisiana Division of Administration, Office of Facility Planning and Control; gra nting 103 Motion for Summary Judgment by Department of Veterans Affairs, General Eric Shinseki, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Craig Fugate; granting 108 Motion for Summary Judgment by City of New Orleans. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 3/31/10. (ala, )
|
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 Louisiana Eastern 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.
