Farrington v. St. Paul, City of et al
| Brian Farrington |
| James Falkowski, Does, James Storey, Nicole Sipes, St. Paul City Attorney's Office, St. Paul, City of and Steven Todd Smith |
| 0:2009cv01838 |
| July 14, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Dakota |
| Frank |
| Mayeron |
| Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
157
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Brian Farrington's post-trial/post-judgment motions (Doc. No. 146 ) are respectfully DENIED. See Order and Memorandum for additional details.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/4/2011. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion for Summary Judgment 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 76) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Brain Farrington's claims against the City of St. Paul, Officer Jason Neubrand, Officer Nicole Sipes, Officer James Storey, Sgt. James Falkowski, and the St. Paul City Attorney's Office is GRANTED. b. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Brain Farrington's claim for excessive force as it is asserted against Officer Steven Todd Smith is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/8/2011. (BJS)
|
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.
