Hupp et al v. Cook et al
| Tiffanie Hupp, Riley Hupp and Clifford Myers |
| Seth Cook, C.R. "Jay" Smithers and West Virginia State Police |
| 2:2017cv00926 |
| January 25, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Wood |
| Thomas E. Johnston |
| 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
119
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendants' 92 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiffs' 90 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; denying as moot 104 MOTION for Oral Argument and 116 MOTION to continue trial and jury selection. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/3/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
|
|
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 22 MOTION to Amend; the Court ORDERS that the First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 22-1), be FILED as the operative pleading in this matter; granting in part and denying in part the 8 Motion to Dismiss; Counts IV, VI, VII, and VIII of the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED to the extent brought against the State Police and its officers in their official capacities; Count VI is further DISMISSED en toto; the Fourteenth Amendment "maliciou s prosecution" claim alleged in Count III is also DISMISSED; as a natural consequence of these findings, directing that the State Police be removed as a party to this action. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/7/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
|
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.
