Huaman v. Sirois et al
| Karla Huaman |
| Mark Sirois, Woodrow Tinsley, III, Steven Syme, Kenneth Sullivan and Town of East Hartford |
| 3:2013cv00484 |
| April 9, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Janet C. Hall |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
171
ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached order, the plaintiff's 150 Motion for a New Trial is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/28/2017. (Mac Dougall, S.)
|
|
Filing
128
ORDER. For the reasons discussed herein and at the pretrial conference, the Court GRANTS the motion to exclude evidence of internal affairs and criminal investigations concerning Plaintiffs arrest and Officer Tinsley, DENIES the motion to exclude opinion testimony the substance of which is disclosed in the reports from Kulpa and Goslee, and GRANTS in part the motion to exclude statements made in emergency room medical records. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/12/2016. (Connelly, L.)
|
|
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION granting in part and denying in part 74 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 9/30/15. (Glynn, T.)
|
|
Filing
101
RULING AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 93 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 4/20/15. (Glynn, T.)
|
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.
