From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coleman v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 8, 2013
NO. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/JFM (PC)

04-08-2013

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants.


ORDER

The court has noted three minor incorrect phrasings in the April 5, 2013 order (ECF No. 4539), and they are hereby corrected as follows:

1. On page 20, footnote 19, it should read: In addition, Vorous does not explain how these matters came "to" her knowledge such that she can now testify about them, since she says that she did not observe them.
2. On page 34, line 23: the repetition in brackets [ ] should be eliminated.
3. On page 42, line 25½, it should read: While this court is refraining from making credibility assessments in
connection "with" this alternative disposition ...

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Coleman v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 8, 2013
NO. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Coleman v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 8, 2013

Citations

NO. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013)