ZIPPERLE v. BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS et al

Defendant: REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. and BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS
Plaintiff: CARL ZIPPERLE
Case Number: 2:2012cv07547
Filed: December 10, 2012
Court: New Jersey District Court
Office: Newark Office
County: Bergen
Referring Judge: Madeline C. Arleo
Presiding Judge: Susan D. Wigenton
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Access additional case information on PACER

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 New Jersey District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ZIPPERLE v. BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
Represented By: DENNIS J. DRASCO
Represented By: KEVIN J. O'CONNOR
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS
Represented By: GREGORY J. BEVELOCK
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CARL ZIPPERLE
Represented By: JOSEPH A. OSEFCHEN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.