Turner v. Hallberg et al
| 3:2004cv00276 |
| February 25, 2004 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Garr M. King |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
359
OPINION AND ORDER: Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 348 . Turner's Supplemental Complaint against these two defendants is dismissed with prejudice. Turner is directed to inform the Court by 3/28/2012 why this analysis should not also serve to bar her claims against David Hallberg. Signed on 3/12/2012 by Judge Garr M. King. (pc)
|
|
Filing
342
OPINION AND ORDER: Kathryn Hallberg and Clay McCaslin's Motion to Dismiss 328 and David Hallberg's Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint 331 are denied. A Preliminary Injunction will be entered in a separate document. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the case for statistical purposes as of the date of the filing of the Supplemental Complaint, June 20, 2011. Signed on 8/10/11 by Judge Garr M. King. (dmd)
|
|
Filing
318
Temporary Restraining Order. Signed on 6/21/11 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (dmd)
|
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 Oregon 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
| Search for this case: Turner v. Hallberg et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
