Clack v. Torre et al
| Edward A. Clack, III |
| Michael Torre, Mark O'Connor, Jane Doe, Guilford Police Department, New Haven County Superior Court, State of Connecticut and Frances D'Orazio |
| 3:2010cv01905 |
| December 3, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Peter C. Dorsey |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
120
ORDER: Defendants' Motion 100 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion 113 to Strike is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendants and to close this case. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 03/17/2014. (Bonneau, J)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER: Defendant Torre's Motion 83 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendant Torre from this action. Defendants Brooks's, O'Connor's, and the Guilford Police Department's Motion 84 for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice to renew by October 11, 2013. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by November 1, 2013 and any reply shall be filed by November 15, 2013. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 09/09/2013. (Bonneau, J)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER: Defendant Michael Torre's Motion 75 to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 08/30/2012. (Bonneau, J)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
