Anup Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture et al
| 3:2002cv01637 |
| December 4, 2002 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Donald C. Ashmanskas |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
| 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
288
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER - The judgment as to damages and costs is amended as follows: Szczepanski and Hyatt shall pay $85,000 in damages and $2,340.79 in costs to Engquist, consistent with this opinion. In addition, Szczepanski and Hyatt shall pay $30,000 and $45,000, respectively, to the CICA. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 3/9/09, by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
286
OPINION AND ORDER - For the reasons stated, the judgment as to damages and costs is amended as follows: Szczepanski and Hyatt shall pay $85,000 in damages and $2,340.79 in costs to Engquist, consistent with this opinion. In addition, Szczepanski and Hyatt shall pay $50,000 and $75,000, respectively, to the CICA. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/26/09, by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
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 Oregon 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
| Search for this case: Anup Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture et al | |
|---|---|
| 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.
