BARBER v. SHEPPLEMAN et al
NOAH BARBER |
STEPHEN SHEPPLEMAN, WILLIAM CAREY, JR., WILLIAM HENDERSON, RIDLEY TOWNSHIP and THE CITY OF CHESTER |
2:2010cv03620 |
July 23, 2010 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Philadelphia Office |
Delaware |
MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN |
Other Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 81 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, AND/OR ARGUMENT OF THE STATUS OF DEFENDANTS AS "OFF-DUTY" (DOC.76) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY ON 10/2/12. 10/2/12 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[fdc] |
Filing 66 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OTHER LAWSUITS, SETTLEMENTS, OR JUDGMENTS (DOC.51), AND EVIDENCE CONCERNING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS OR DISCIPLINARY RECORDS (DOC.53), THE RESPONSES, THERETO, (DOCS.58 AND 59), AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MOTIONS TO PRECLUDE ARE GRANTED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY ON 3/29/12. 3/29/12 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(fdc) |
Filing 35 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF CHESTER AS UNCONTESTED. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF CHESTER AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO DEFENDANTS SHEPPLEMAN AND CAREY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 9/26/11. 9/26/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) |
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 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.