BENCKINI v. UPPERSAUCON TOWNSHIP, ET, AL. et al
| GENE C. BENCKINI |
| UPPERSAUCON TOWNSHIP, ET, AL., COOPERSBURG BOROUGH, ET, AL., BRIAN HAWK, STEPHEN KUEBLER, AMEY GETZ, EDWARD HARTMAN, THOMAS J. NICOLETTI, BRIAN MC LAUGHLIN, WILLIAM C. NAHRGANG, DANIEL TREXLER, CHARLES WYCKOFF, JASON LEIDECKER, ANDY MEDELLIN, SCOTT PARRY, LEROY OSWALD, DANIEL STONEHOUSE, ROBERT COYLE and AMANDA LOVETT |
| 2:2007cv03580 |
| August 28, 2007 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Lehigh |
| GENE E.K. PRATTER |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| 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
116
ORDERED THAT PLAINIFF BENCKINI'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 78) IS DENIED AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 80) IS GRANTED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS INSTRUCTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE FOR ALL PURPOSES, INCLUDING STATISTICS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 09/14/09. 09/15/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(rab)
|
|
Filing
111
ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF BENCKINI'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 79) IS DENIED. DEFENDANT OSWALD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED (DOCKET NO. 81). SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 04/21/2009. 04/21/2009 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(rab)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
