Pulsipher v. Clark County et al
Alan Pulsipher |
Clark County, Clark County Department of Juvenile Justice Services, Cheryl Townsend, Larry Carter and Sheron Hayes |
2:2008cv01374 |
October 10, 2008 |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
Clark |
Lawrence R. Leavitt |
Robert C. Jones |
Plaintiff |
Federal Question |
42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 145 ORDER Granting 144 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/6/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS) |
Filing 142 ORDERED that 134 Motion for New Trial is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Judgment and for Attorney's Fees and Costs 130 , 131 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The judgment is AMENDED to permit taxation of Defendant's costs by the Clerk, subject to objection and review, but attorney's fees are denied. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/9/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) |
Filing 89 ORDER that the Motion for Reconsideration 79 is DENIED. The Motion in Limine 84 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/27/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS) |
Filing 78 ORDER Denying 42 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/20/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS) |
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 Nevada 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.