Chesler v. City of Fairview Park, Ohio et al
| Mark Chesler |
| City of Fairview Park, Ohio, Eric Upperman, John E. Martin and Jeffrey M Jurcak |
| 1:2013cv00040 |
| January 8, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Cuyahoga |
| Sara Lioi |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
76
Memorandum Opinion: The Court grants, in part, defendants' joint summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 57 .) All claims against the City of Fairview Park are dismissed. Count II (equal protection), Count III (due process), Count IV (civil r ights), Count VI (intentional infliction of emotional distress), and Count VII (abuse of process) are also dismissed as against defendants Martin, Jurcak, and Upperman. The Court also finds that defendants Jurcak and Upperman are entitled to qualified immunity on Count I (Fourth Amendment seizure). Count I and Count V (declaratory judgment) survive summary judgment as against defendant Martin only. Judge Sara Lioi on 5/9/2014. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
17
Opinion and Order: The Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. No. 16 -1) shall be deemed filed as of the date of this order. Judge Sara Lioi on 6/12/2013. (S,He)
|
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 Ohio 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.
