Richardson v. Chicago Police Department et al
| Dwight Richardson |
| Chicago Police Department, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4 and Officer #5 |
| 1:2017cv08553 |
| November 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Virginia M. Kendall |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
127
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/15/2020. Defendants statements of material facts, which were not disputed by Richardson, show they did not violate Richardson's Fourth Amendment rights when seizing hi s car and conducting an inventory search. They also demonstrate they are entitled to Qualified Immunity. Richardson's Motion for Summary Judgment does not show there are any issues of material of fact on these issues. Special Agent LaMonte, Sergeant Hamilton and Officer Mingari's Motions for Summary Judgment 97 , 100 are granted. Richardson's Motion for Summary Judgment 108 is denied. See Opinion for further details. Mailed notice(lk, )
|
|
Filing
76
OPPOSITION MOTION by Plaintiff Dwight Richardson to defendants Mingari and Hamilton's answer, affirmative defense to plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, and motion for judgment of matters of law (Exhibits) (Envelope not postmarked). (sxb, )
|
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 Illinois Northern 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.
