Ellis et al v. City of Akron et al
| Brandon Ellis and Amber O'Neil |
| John and Jane Does, Michael C Williams and City of Akron |
| 5:2012cv03089 |
| December 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Akron Office |
| Summit |
| Benita Y. Pearson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| 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
74
Corrected Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14 ) on the First Claim for Relief is denied on the basis of qualified immunity. The Court reserves ruling on whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Second through Sixth Claims for Relief. Counsel are reminded that this case is set for trial on 11/12/2013. See Order (ECF No. 18 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/29/2013. (JLG)
|
|
Filing
63
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14 ) on the First Claim for Relief is denied on the basis of qualified immunity. The Court reserves ruling on whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Second through Sixth Claims for Relief. Counsel are reminded that this case is set for trial on 11/12/2013. See Order (ECF No. 18 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/28/2013. (JLG)
|
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.
