Bicknell v. Dakota GM, Inc. et al
| Gina Bicknell |
| Ruttgers Birchmont Lodge, Inc. and Dakota GM, Inc. |
| Dakota GM, Inc. |
| Ruttgers Birchmont Lodge, Inc. |
| 0:2007cv03529 |
| July 26, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Raymond L. Erickson |
| John R. Tunheim |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| 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
82
ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on November 19, 2009. (HAM)
|
|
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 55 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Motion is granted as to Green Mill's assertion of theories for comparative neg ligence, assumption of risk, imputation, complicity, and duty to avoid or mitigate damages; and the motion is denied in all other respects. (2) granting in part and denying in part defendant's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Mo tion is granted as to plaintiff's claim of an illegal sale based on off-premises consumption of alcohol; motion is denied without prejudice as to the inclusion of plaintiff's husband's medical and nursing expenses in plaintiff's requested damages; and motion is denied in all other respects.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 24, 2009. (dml)
|
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 Minnesota 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.
