Douglas Norem v. City of Cedar Rapids, et al
| Douglas Norem, [email protected] |
| City of Cedar Rapids, Paul Cavin, Officer, Melinda Rauwolf, Officer, Christopher Christy, Officer, Kyzer Moore, Officer, Lucas Liddle, Officer, Jeffrey Herbert, Sergeant and Shannon Aguero Jones, Sergeant |
| 26-3096 |
| October 15, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 15, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Civil case docketed. [5694842] [26-3096] (CBO) [Entered: 10/15/2026 11:23 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of docket entries, Memorandum Opinion and Order filed 9/30/2026, Judgment filed 9/30/2026, and Notice of Appeal filed 10/13/2026. [5694851] [26-3096] (CBO) [Entered: 10/15/2026 11:28 AM] |
| BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: If the original file of the U.S. District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by 8th Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with 8th Circuit Local Rule 30A (a)(2), the clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Douglas Norem due 11/24/2026. Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [5694852] [26-3096] (CBO) [Entered: 10/15/2026 11:29 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
