CORNISH v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 14-6920. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150819c33
Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER HARVEY BARTLE, III , District Judge . AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2015, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the motion of defendant the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 61) is GRANTED insofar as it seeks judgment in its favor on any allegations of institutional negligence contained in Count Three of the First Amended Complaint; (2
Summary: ORDER HARVEY BARTLE, III , District Judge . AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2015, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the motion of defendant the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 61) is GRANTED insofar as it seeks judgment in its favor on any allegations of institutional negligence contained in Count Three of the First Amended Complaint; (2)..
More
ORDER
HARVEY BARTLE, III, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2015, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) the motion of defendant the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 61) is GRANTED insofar as it seeks judgment in its favor on any allegations of institutional negligence contained in Count Three of the First Amended Complaint;
(2) the motion of defendant the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment is otherwise DENIED; and
(3) the motion of defendants Christopher Oppman and Joseph Korszniak for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 69) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle