Hillary v. The Village of Potsdam New York et al
| Oral Hillary |
| The Village of Potsdam New York, Edward Tischler, Mark Murray, Charlie Daniels, Michael Ames and Police Officers John Does 1-100 |
| 7:2012cv01669 |
| November 9, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Watertown Office |
| St. Lawrence |
| David E. Peebles |
| Gary L. Sharpe |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
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
84
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Hillary's 59 motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. That defendants' 60 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: DENIED with respect to Hillary's f alse imprisonment (Am. Compl. 55-62) and Fourth Amendment (id. 63-64a, 65) claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities and the Village of Potsdam, as well as his request for punitive damages against the individual defend ants (id. 92-93); and GRANTED in all other respects, and Hillary's remaining claims are DISMISSED. That the Clerk terminate Daniels as a defendant in this action. That Hillary's 66 , 69 and 73 motions to unseal are DENIED. That this case is trial ready and the Clerk shall issue a trial scheduling order in due course. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/3/2015. (jel, )
|
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 New York Northern 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.
