{"id":265,"date":"2018-01-27T15:10:36","date_gmt":"2018-01-27T20:10:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/?p=265"},"modified":"2018-01-27T15:10:36","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T20:10:36","slug":"january-24-2018-doyle-hamm-files-surreply-in-federal-court-in-birmingham-alabama","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/2018\/01\/27\/january-24-2018-doyle-hamm-files-surreply-in-federal-court-in-birmingham-alabama\/","title":{"rendered":"January 24, 2018 | Doyle Hamm Files Surreply in Federal Court in Birmingham, Alabama"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On January 24th, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm responded to the state of Alabama&#8217;s brief in support of summary judgment. Counsel emphasized that there are numerous issues of material fact that require the federal district court in Birmingham, Alabama, to hold a full trial on his \u00a71983 complaint. The pleading is attached here:<\/p>\n<div class=\"ead-preview\"><div class=\"ead-document\" style=\"position: relative;padding-top: 90%;\"><div class=\"ead-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe src=\"\/\/docs.google.com\/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.law.columbia.edu%2Fupdate-hamm-v-alabama%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F01%2F19-Hamm-Surreply-with-Exhibits-STAMPED.pdf&amp;embedded=true&amp;hl=en\" title=\"Embedded Document\" class=\"ead-iframe\" style=\"width: 100%;height: 100%;border: none;position: absolute;left: 0;top: 0;visibility: hidden;\"><\/iframe><\/div>\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-document-loading\" style=\"width:100%;height:100%;position:absolute;left:0;top:0;z-index:10;\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-wrap\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-main\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/loading.svg\" width=\"55\" height=\"55\" alt=\"Loader\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>Loading...<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-foot\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-foot-title\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/EAD-logo.svg\" alt=\"EAD Logo\" width=\"36\" height=\"23\"\/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>Taking too long?<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-document-btn ead-reload-btn\" role=\"button\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/reload.svg\" alt=\"Reload\" width=\"12\" height=\"12\"\/> Reload document\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>|<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/01\/19-Hamm-Surreply-with-Exhibits-STAMPED.pdf\" class=\"ead-document-btn\" target=\"_blank\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/open.svg\" alt=\"Open\" width=\"12\" height=\"12\"\/> Open in new tab\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><p class=\"embed_download\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/01\/19-Hamm-Surreply-with-Exhibits-STAMPED.pdf\" download>Download [592.49 KB] <\/a><\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On January 24th, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm responded to the state of Alabama&#8217;s brief in support of summary judgment. Counsel emphasized that there are numerous issues of material fact that require the federal district court in Birmingham, Alabama, to hold a full trial on his \u00a71983 complaint. The pleading is attached here:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1641,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-265","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1641"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}