JAGLOWICZ v. BETHEL TOWNSHIP et al
| RAYMOND C. JAGLOWICZ |
| BETHEL TOWNSHIP, TOM WORRILOW, JOHN CAMERO, III, ED MILES, MILES DAVEY, JEAN STOYER and TODD APPLE |
| 2:2015cv04902 |
| August 31, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Delaware |
| TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
51
ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 56 (DOCUMENT NO. 22 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: TO THE EXTENT THE MOTION SEEKS JUDGMENT IN THE DEFENDANTS FAVOR ON THE CLAI MS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FAILURE TO CREATE A POLICE PENSION IN VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL POLICE PENSION LAW, AND A CLAIM UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IT IS GRANTED. TO THE EXTENT THE MOTION SEEKS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMS UNDER THE POLICE TENU RE ACT AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT IS DENIED. TO THE EXTENT THE MOTION SEEKS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, TOM WORRILOW, JOHN CAMERO, III, ED MILES, MILES DAVEY, JEAN STOYER AND TODD APPLE, IT IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 4/14/16. 4/14/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va, )
|
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.
