B. E. et al v. Mount Hope High School et al
| Sharon Endicott, B. E. and Stephen Endicott |
| Leah Hutchins, Bo Morrison, The Board of Education of Fayette County, West Virginia, The West Virginia Department of Education, Linda Nevi, Mike Hutchins and Mount Hope High School |
| 2:2011cv00679 |
| September 30, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Fayette |
| Joseph R. Goodwin |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
54
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant Fayette County Board of Education's 17 MOTION to Dismiss; granting as to the state law claims, and denying as to the Title IX claim; defendants Mike Hutchins, Leah Hut chins, Linda Nevi and Bo Morrison's 17 MOTION to Dismiss is granted as to claims against them in their official capacity; the claims against Mike Hutchins, Leah Hutchins, Linda Nevi and Bo Morrison in their individual capacity are granted in p art as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and denied as to the negligent supervision and negligence claims; granting defendant Mount Hope High School's 17 MOTION to Dismiss; denying defendants' 22 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/17/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
