Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ARMSTRONG v. BORIE

July 29, 1980

MARK A. ARMSTRONG
v.
OFFICER CHARLES BORIE et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BRODERICK

MEMORANDUM

 1. The jury's answers to special interrogatories were contrary to the evidence.

 2. The jury's answers to special interrogatories were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence and the trial record.

 3. The jury's answers to special interrogatories were contrary to the law.

 4. The Learned Trial Judge committed prejudicial error in dismissing those charges against all of the defendants encompassed in Count II, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 at the close of plaintiff's case in chief.

 5. The Learned Trial Judge committed prejudicial error in dismissing those actions against all of the defendants encompassed in Count III, 42 U.S.C. § 1986 at the close of plaintiff's case in chief.

 6. The Learned Trial Judge committed prejudicial error in dismissing those allegations against the defendants City of Philadelphia and Joseph F. O'Neill contained in Count I, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at the close of plaintiff's case in chief.

 7. The Learned Trial Judge committed prejudicial error in dismissing all allegations against defendant Joseph O'Neill at the close of plaintiff's case in chief.

 8. The Learned Trial Judge erred in failing to affirm plaintiff's point for charge No. 7 as to the duty of police officers from preventing other officers violating the civil rights of the plaintiff.

 9. The Learned Trial Judge erred in failing to affirm plaintiff's point for charge No. 8 in that defendant Borie being a supervisory officer was liable for the acts of others under his command even if the jury did not believe that he personally struck plaintiff Mark A. Armstrong.

 10. The Learned Trial Judge erred in failing to affirm plaintiff's point for charge No. 19 in that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a conspiracy existing between two or more persons and therefore such conspiracy charge should have been given.

 11. The Learned Trial Judge erred in failing to question the jurors on Friday, March 9, 1979, as to whether their judgment on the liability issue would be affected by the fact that they would have to return for a subsequent trial on the damages sustained by the plaintiff. The Court made further error in not agreeing to inform the jury that if their judgment would be affected, one or more of the jurors could be discharged or an entire new jury could hear the damages issue.

 12. The Learned Trial Judge erred in continuing to permit the defendants, over the numerous objections of the plaintiff, to question the plaintiff and other witnesses about plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.