Cicchetti v. Davis

Cicchetti v. Davis

Case Number:	7:2007cv10546
Filed:	November 26, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
Presiding Judge:	William C. Conner
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
April 6, 2009	Filing 40 OPINION AND ORDER......For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that deft. is entitled to the affirmative defense that plaintiff was policymaker and find that deft. is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we set aside the jury's ve rdict on plaintiff's first amendment claim and its award of damages thereon. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of deft., without costs or atty's. fees for either party. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William C. Conner on 04/06/2009) (jma)
January 26, 2009	Filing 21 OPINION AND ORDER:... Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #11) dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment claim brought against defendant in defendant's individual capacity is granted, defen dant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment claim brought against defendant in defendant's official capacity is denied, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's First Amendm ent claim brought on behalf of a third party is denied and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's race-based claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983 is denied. re: 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Ernest D. Davis. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William C. Conner on 01/26/2009) (gco)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 6, 2009

Filing 40 OPINION AND ORDER......For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that deft. is entitled to the affirmative defense that plaintiff was policymaker and find that deft. is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we set aside the jury's ve rdict on plaintiff's first amendment claim and its award of damages thereon. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of deft., without costs or atty's. fees for either party. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William C. Conner on 04/06/2009) (jma)

January 26, 2009

Filing 21 OPINION AND ORDER:... Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #11) dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment claim brought against defendant in defendant's individual capacity is granted, defen dant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment claim brought against defendant in defendant's official capacity is denied, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's First Amendm ent claim brought on behalf of a third party is denied and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's race-based claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983 is denied. re: 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Ernest D. Davis. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William C. Conner on 01/26/2009) (gco)

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cicchetti v. Davis
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?