10000 search results for query *

Summary: 400 F. Supp. *1085 Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, IL (Victoria J. Peters, Brandon Fox, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel), for U.S. *1086 John T. Theis, Chicago, IL, for Defendant. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged in a nine-count indictment with two counts of attempting to damage and destroy the Dirksen Federal Building by a fire or explosion (18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f)(1) and 844(i))(Counts 1 and 2); one count of attempting to more.

Summary: 672 F. Supp. Powe v. City of Chicago, 664 F.2d 639, 642 (7th Cir.1981). Hindley responds that the alleged Policy Statement provisions regarding employee qualification and vacation pay and the Compensation Plan's base salary and merit commission provisions sufficiently set forth Seltel's contractual obligations. Medina v. Spotnail, Inc., 591 F. Supp.

Summary: 173 B.R. 363 (1994) In re ENERGY COOPERATIVE, INC., Debtor. MEMORANDUM OPINION KOCORAS, District Judge: This matter is before the Court on various motions, all stemming from the entry of two proposed settlement agreements which purport to settle environmental claims relating to environmental damage at the Debtor's former refinery in East Chicago and Hammond, Indiana. The two proposed agreements before us purport to settle the Debtor's liabilities and all environmental claims relating to the more.

Summary: 135 F. Supp. Associates' Health and Welfare Plan ("Committee") has gotten around to what it should have done in the first place: Instead of pursuing its employee Jeanie Jay in her capacities as personal representative and as administrator of the estate of her minor son Andrew, it is seeking straightforward relief against Ms. Jay in her individual capacity. Because the Plan paid $8,870.41 in medical expenses for treatment of injuries that Andrew had sustained as the result of a dog bite, Jeanie more.

Summary: 784 F. Supp. Hunley challenges the constitutionality of his conviction on two grounds: (1) the prosecutor's improper rebuttal closing argument allegedly deprived him of his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial; and (2) the burglary of four sequestered jurors allegedly violated his right to due process and a trial by an impartial jury. 2d 722 (1981); Balfour v. Haws, 892 F.2d 556, 559 (7th Cir.1989). Hunley asserts two claims in this habeas petition: (1) that the prosecutor's more.

Summary: 209 F. Supp. Ellsworth v. City of Racine, 774 F.2d 182, 184 (7th Cir.1985), cert. Delgado v. Jones, 282 F.3d 511, 519 (7th Cir.2002); Gonzalez v. City of Chicago, 239 F.3d 939, 941 (7th Cir.2001); Branton v. City of Dallas, 272 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir.2001). See Hanania v. Loren-Maltese, 56 F. Supp.

Summary: 140 F. Supp. For that purpose this Court must "read[ ] the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party," although it "is not required to draw unreasonable inferences from the evidence" (St. Louis N. Joint Venture v. P & L Enters., Inc., 116 F.3d 262, 265 n. 2 (7th Cir.1997)). As Pipitone v. United States, 180 F.3d 859, 861 (7th Cir.1999) has more recently quoted from Roger v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 21 F.3d 146, 149 (7th Cir.1994): A genuine issue for trial exists only when a more.

Summary: 642 F. Supp. 1043 (1986) GROVE SCHOOL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. Grove School ("School") and its Director Robert Matson ("Matson") initially sued the State of Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission ("Commission") and its employees Elizabeth McKee ("McKee"), Mary Gibb ("Gibb"), Evelyn Engler ("Engler"), Ruth Durkin ("Durkin") and Hector Palacios ("Palacios"), asserting: 1. On March 2 Commission voted to open an investigation of School more.

Summary: 1 F. Supp. The facts surrounding this lawsuit are adequately set forth in the prior three opinions this Court has already written in this case: FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 1334 (N.D.Ill.1994) ("FASA I") (partially granted and partially denied defendant's motion for summary judgment); FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1061, 1070 (N.D.Ill.1995) ("FASA II") (rejected Playmates' affirmative defense of waiver); and Fasa Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F. Supp. more.

Summary: 512 F. Supp. *1161 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge. Relators Katy Kennedy and Frank Matos bring this qui tam[1] action on behalf of the United States and the State of Illinois under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. (FCA), and the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act, 740 ILCS 175/1 et seq. (IWRPA), against Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and PharmaNetics, Inc. Thompson v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. Relators allege more.

Summary: 715 F. Supp. See Professional Asset Management, Inc. v. Penn Square Bank, 566 F. Supp. Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education, 811 F.2d 1030, 1039 (7th Cir.1987). See von Bulow By Auersperg v. von Bulow, 657 F. Supp. See *216 Tomera v. Galt, 511 F.2d 504, 508 (7th Cir.1975) (requiring only "bare bones" of fraudulent scheme to be alleged to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b)). See also Ambling v. Blackstone Cattle Co., Inc., 658 F. Supp. Retirement Plan v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., more.

Summary: 594 F. Supp. 72 (1984) NATIONAL PEOPLE'S ACTION, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BLUE ISLAND, ILLINOIS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GETZENDANNER, District Judge: This action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), is before the court on the motion for partial summary judgment of plaintiff National People's Action ("NPA") against the City of Blue Island ("Blue Island"). These communications culminated in a letter from Stan Lukas, president of the Blue Island Chamber of more.

Summary: (2008) Brent WOOLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, Inc.; Farrukh Sohail; Smart Tax, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Hewitt Tax Service; Ask Tax, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Hewitt Tax Service; and Certain Unknown Jackson Hewitt Franchisees # 1-100, Defendants. Brent Wooley ("Plaintiff") brings this purported class action against Jackson Hewitt, Inc. ("Jackson Hewitt"), Farrukh Sohail ("Sohail"), more.

Summary: 181 F. Supp. 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b); Stauffacher v. Bennett, 969 F.2d 455, 460 (7th Cir.1992), superseded on other grounds by amendment of rule (finding nationwide service of process under § 1965(b)). Lisak v. Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., 834 F.2d 668, 671-72 (7th Cir.1987); see also Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, 36 F. Supp. 4(k)(1)(A); Janmark, Inc. v. Reidy, 132 F.3d 1200, 1201 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that even in federal question case, where federal statute does not authorize service of process, the more.

Summary: 948 F. Supp. 736 (1996) Otilio ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. GRAFTON TRANSIT, INC., a foreign corporation, and James F. Michelli, Defendants. Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 367 (7th Cir.1993).

Summary: 212 F. Supp. Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education, 161 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir.1998); Wenger v. Canastota Central School Dist., 146 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir.1998); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876-7 (9th Cir.1997).