'Powpow v Margate'???

[shooter1201]

Any info on this 'ruling'?

[John from Maryland]

The cite is Popow v. Margate, 476 F Supp. 1237 (D.N.J. 1979). The case is frequently cited as a legal requirement for realistic firearms training. If I recall correctly, the incident involved a municipal officer who had a round strike a bystander. The agency's training was almost exclusively static in nature. Hope this helps.

[207]

Does this help??


ROSEMARY POPOW, as General Administratrix and Administratrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Darwin Popow, deceased, and ROSEMARY POPOW, individually, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MARGATE, a municipal corporation, and GEORGE BIAGI, Defendants.


Civ. A. No. 78-1536


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


476 F. Supp. 1237; 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10078



August 31, 1979

COUNSEL: [**1]

Lewis B. April, Mary Reiss, Cooper, Perskie, Katzman, April, Niedelman & Wagenheim, Atlantic City, N. J., for plaintiffs.

Jack Gorny, Gerald Faber, Horn, Kaplan, Goldberg & Gorny, Atlantic City, N. J., for defendants.

OPINIONBY: BROTMAN

OPINION: [*1240]

OPINION

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

[shooter1201]

[quote]3033
posted 03-30-2002 06:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this help??

ROSEMARY POPOW, as General Administratrix and Administratrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Darwin Popow, deceased, and ROSEMARY POPOW, individually, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MARGATE, a municipal corporation, and GEORGE BIAGI, Defendants.


Civ. A. No. 78-1536


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


476 F. Supp. 1237; 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10078

August 31, 1979

COUNSEL: [**1]

Lewis B. April, Mary Reiss, Cooper, Perskie, Katzman, April, Niedelman & Wagenheim, Atlantic City, N. J., for plaintiffs.

Jack Gorny, Gerald Faber, Horn, Kaplan, Goldberg & Gorny, Atlantic City, N. J., for defendants.

OPINIONBY: BROTMAN

OPINION: [*1240]

OPINION

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

[207]

Your welcome... It's nice to have access to large law databases that can be of some use.. :D

[NLETA]

Shooter,

I'd also call TN POST and Donelson. I am sure they have some research done that will be helpful.

The above opinion merely denies defendants motion requesting summary judgement (dismissal). The defendant's (officer and the city) were basically saying that the allegations did not rise to meet the standard needed according to what they (plaintiffs) filed under in federal court and they were asking for a dismissal because if it didn't rise to meet what was neccessary for a federal violation, then the federal court would have no jurisdiction.

[i]"Before the court is a motion for summary judgment by defendants, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, in which they argue that plaintiff has stated no claim [**2] cognizable under