Kardell v. Lane County et al
Marc Kardell |
Alex Gardner, Lane County and Liane Richardson |
6:2013cv00736 |
May 1, 2013 |
US District Court for the District of Oregon |
Eugene (6) Office |
Ann L. Aiken |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 227 OPINION AND ORDER: Gardner is awarded $6,235.00 in costs. Davis and Lane Countys Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is denied. Kardell is awarded $389,348.75 in attorneys fees, as detailed above. Kardell is awarded post judgment interest at 2.52% and prejudgment interest of $18,464.26 against Davis and $18,464.26 against Lane County. Kardell is awarded $15,572.42 in costs and $22,139.74 in nontaxable costs. Signed on 7/25/2019 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) |
Filing 126 ORDER: Denying Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 103 and 108 .The parties shall confer and contact Charlene Pew, my courtroom deputy, regarding a trial date for later this year. Signed on 6/4/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) |
Filing 99 ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees 85 is Denied. Plaintiff's Motion for fees incurred in drafting surreply is denied. Signed on 1/13/2015 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) |
Filing 83 ORDER: Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 45 and 47 are Granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 52 on one affirmative defense is denied as moot. Signed on 9/3/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) |
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
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.