Hogan et al v. Lewis County, New York et al
| Elizabeth Hogan and Mark Hogan |
| Lewis County, New York, Leanne Moser, Caleb Petzoldt, Mark R. Lemieux, Fayle, Craft, Frank Rose, David Vandewater, Wilbur L. Stanford, Jr., John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) |
| 7:2016cv01325 |
| November 4, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Watertown Office |
| Lewis |
| Andrew T. Baxter |
| Glenn T. Suddaby |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
178
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to reinstate Elizabeth Hogan's loss of consortium claim against Defendant Rose is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the parties' motions in limine (Dkt. Nos . 138 , 156 , 168 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in this opinion. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants are directed to file, by March 10, 2022, a letter brief with a proffer of the prior lawsuits they seek to admit at trial, including the dates of the prior lawsuits and their relevance. Plaintiff may respond with a letter brief by March 11, 2022. It is further ORDERED that the parties are directed to file, by March 9, 2022: (1) a proposed stipulation describing the legal right of way that is at issue in Plaintiff's negligence claim, and (2) a proposed stipulation regarding Stanford's right to use the road at issue on September 1, 2016. To the extent the parties cannot agree, they must each file a letter brief with a proposed stipulation, explaining their position with citations to documents that are either in the record or attached to their letter brief. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 3/7/2022. (nmk)
|
|
Filing
120
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDERED, that Vandewaters summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 94) is GRANTED in its entirety. All of Plaintiffs claims against Vandewater are hereby DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that Roses summary judgment motion (Dkt. No . 96) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Mark Hogans malicious prosecution claim against Rose, Elizabeth Hogans loss of consortium claim, Plaintiffs request for punitive damages, and Stanfords cross-claim against Rose are DISMISSED; Mark Hogans negligence claim against Rose can proceed; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall TERMINATE defendant Vandewater from the docket. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on October 16, 2020. (sas)
|
|
Filing
116
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDERED, that the NYSP Defendants summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 83) is GRANTED in its entirety. All claims against the NYSP Defendants are hereby DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that Stanfords summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 82) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The defamation claim against Stanford is DISMISSED; the false arrest claim, trespass claim, and associated request for punitive damages against Stanford can proceed; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall TERMINATE defendants Craft and Fayle from the docket. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on June 01, 2020. (sas)
|
|
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDERED, that the Lewis County Defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Lewis County, Moser, Lemieuz, and Petzoldt are DISMISSED from this suit. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on September 28, 2018. (sas)
|
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.
