New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri et al
Plaintiff: New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc.
Defendant: City of St. Louis, Missouri and Edward Roth
Counter_defendant: New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc.
Counter_claimant: Edward Roth and City of St. Louis
Case Number: 4:2012cv01077
Filed: June 16, 2012
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: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 27, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 22 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, [Doc. No. 2], is granted, and that Plaintiffs shall be required to pay a bond of $100.00 in support thereof. A separate injunction shall issue in accordance with this memorandum. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 8/27/13. (CLA)
August 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 11 ], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of St. Louis' Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 15 ], is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 08/26/2013. (CLK)
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: New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter_defendant: New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc.
Represented By: Daniel P. Boyle
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 ]
Counter_claimant: Edward Roth
Represented By: Matthew M. Moak
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 ]
Counter_claimant: City of St. Louis
Represented By: Matthew M. Moak
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: New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc.
Represented By: Daniel P. Boyle
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: City of St. Louis, Missouri
Represented By: Matthew M. Moak
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 ]
Defendant: Edward Roth
Represented By: Matthew M. Moak
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 ]

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?