Henke v. Collins et al
Adam Henke |
Daniel Collins, Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, Michael Rader, Angela Wasson-Hunt, Leland Shurin, Alvin Brooks and Sly James |
4:2016cv00371 |
April 27, 2016 |
US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
Kansas City Office |
Andrew |
Dean Whipple |
Other Civil Rights |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Defendant |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 83 ORDER - the Court grants summary judgment to Officer Collins on Count IV and to the Board on the remaining aspects of Count III. When combined with the June 2 Order, these rulings resolve Counts I through IV. With all substantive claims resolved, judgment for Defendants on Count V is appropriate as well. Signed on 6/30/17 by District Judge Beth Phillips. (Enss, Rhonda) |
Filing 80 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 : Defendants Motion for summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to (1) Counts I and II in their entirety, to the extent they assert claims against Officer Collins, and (2 ) Count III, IV and V to the extent those counts assert claims against the Board based on Officer Collins actions. The John Doe Defendants are DISMISSED. Officer Collins and the Board shall submit supplemental briefing as described in Parts II.D.2 and II.F of this Order. Signed on 6/2/17 by District Judge Beth Phillips. (Cordell, Annette) |
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 Western 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.