Epice Corporation v. Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, The et al
Plaintiff: Epice Corporation
Defendant: Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, The, James W. Murphy, Ronald A. Leggett and St. Louis, Missouri, City of
Case Number: 4:2007cv00206
Filed: January 25, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge: Henry E. Autrey
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 190 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Attorneys Fees, [Doc. No.s 146 and 150], is denied. 146 150 (See Order for further details.) Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 8/23/2010. (CBL)
August 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 188 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants the Land Reutilization Authority of St. Louis and the City of St. Louis' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I, 181 , is Granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered this same date. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 8/17/10. (TRC)
August 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 187 OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count III, 166 , is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment shall be entered upon the resolution of the remaining issues in this matter. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 8/5/10. (TRC)
June 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 177 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Courts Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated December 4, 2009, is amended nunc pro tunc, as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants The Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. L ouis and the City of St. Louis Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 110] is granted as to Counts I on all issues except Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 by taking Plaintiffs property without just compensation, II, and IV and denied on Count III. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 6/10/10. (CLA)
December 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 145 MEMORANDUM OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pltff.'s mtn. for partial summary jgm. is denied. IT IS FURTHR ORDERED that defts. The Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis and the City of St. Louis' mtn. for partial sum. jgm. is granted as to counts I, II, and IV and denied on count III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defts. Daly and Murphy's mtn. for sum. jgm. is granted. 110 112 108 Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 12/4/09. (CLA)
September 28, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 120 OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER re 95 and 99 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, 95 and 99 , are denied. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 9/28/09. (TRC)
November 26, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 93 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 65 83 67 63 89 : ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend by Interlineation its Third Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 67], is denied. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint within 7 days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial setting of December 8, 2008 is vacated, to be reset after the parties submit their Amended Case Management Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Leggett and Murphy's Motion for Sum mary Judgment, [Doc. No. 63], Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 65], and Defendants Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, LRA, and the City of St. Louis' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 68], are denied, without prejudice to refiling, as provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion in Limine filed by Defendants Leggett and Murphy, [Doc. No. 83], and the Joint Motion in Limine filed by LRA and the City of St . Louis, [Doc. No. 89], are denied without prejudice to refiling, as provided herein.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall, within 14 days from thedate of this Order meet, prepare and submit to the Court an Amended CaseManagement Order, as detailed herein.( Response to Court due by 12/10/2008.). Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 11/26/08. (CEL)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Epice Corporation v. Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, The et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, The
Represented By: Donald G. Dylewski
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: James W. Murphy
Represented By: Anthony J. Sestric, Sr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ronald A. Leggett
Represented By: Anthony J. Sestric, Sr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: St. Louis, Missouri, City of
Represented By: Robert M. Hibbs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Epice Corporation
Represented By: Matthew C. Casey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?