Homebuilders Association of Mississippi, Inc. et al v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
| Homebuilders Association of Mississippi, Inc., Homebuilders Association of Jackson, Inc. and R&S Developers, LLC |
| City of Brandon, Mississippi |
| 3:2007cv00716 |
| December 7, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Jackson Office |
| Hinds |
| Linda R. Anderson |
| William H. Barbour |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Fair Housing 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
145
OPINION OF THE COURT. In accordance with the jury verdict, Defendant is hereby entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act claim, Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief, and Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. In accor dance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Court, Defendant is hereby entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act claim, Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief, and Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief. A Final Judgment in favor of Defendant, the City of Brandon, Mississippi, shall be entered this day, and the case will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 7-16-2009 (Lewis, Nijah)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER denying 125 Motion of Defendants to Strike and Objection to Evidence and Testimony; granting in part and denying in part 132 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Excluding Reference to NAACP et al. v. City of Kyle, Tex. To the extent the Motio n seeks to prevent the subject Opinion from being introduced into evidence, and seeks to prevent counsel for Defendant from referencing the subject Opinion in the presence of the jury, the Motion is granted. To the extent the Motion seeks to prevent counsel for the Defendant from citing or referencing the subject Opinion to the Court during arguments made outside the presence of the jury or at side bar, and seeks to exclude the Opinion from being referenced in support of proposed jury instructions, the Motion is denied. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 6-19-09 (Lewis, Nijah)
|
|
Filing
123
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 102 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 104 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying 106 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 112 Motion in Limine; denying 115 Motion in Limine . Motion of Defendant in Limine to Exclude Opinions of Brian Richard and Thomas Sager 112 is hereby denied. The Motion of Plaintiffs in Limine Excluding Opinion of Charles D. Cowan, Ph.D. 115 is hereby denied. The Motion of Plaintiffs for Declara tory Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment 104 and 106 is hereby denied. The Motion of Defendant for Summary Judgment is hereby granted in part, and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant on the following claims: (C ount 2) infringement of substantive due process rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (Count 3) infringement of equal protection rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (Count 5) taking property without just compensation in violatio n of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant is also granted summary judgment on the state law claims alleged by Plaintiffs to the extent Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages on those claims. All other claims, including the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, remain for trial. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 6-10-2009 (Lewis, Nijah) Modified on 6/11/2009 (cwl).
|
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 Mississippi Southern 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.
