505 search results for query *

Summary: 712 F. Supp. Subsequently, Fairchild filed a third-party complaint against the United States and the Department of the Air Force seeking contribution or indemnity pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671-2680. Winslow v. Walters, 815 F.2d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir.1987); Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1070 (7th Cir.1987). United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 590, 61 S. Ct. at 771; Lojuk v. Quandt, 706 F.2d 1456, 1461 (7th Cir.1983). 1985); based on the more.

Summary: 188 F. Supp. On November 20, 1953, a special meeting of the board of directors of Wilkins Pipe was held, at which a resolution was adopted recommending to the shareholders of the corporation that a new corporation under the name of Charles L. Wilkins, Inc., which is hereinafter referred to as Wilkins, be organized, and that Wilkins Pipe would transfer to such new corporation all lands, buildings and nonbusiness assets of Wilkins Pipe in exchange for all of Wilkins' common stock. Due to certain more.

Summary: 97 F. Supp. I. Introduction Pending before the Court are Defendants' three motions for summary judgment and Defendants' three motions for sanctions pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against Marcia Harris and her attorneys (Docket Entry Nos. 88, 98, 105, 62, 120, and 124, respectively). The First Amended Complaint alleges: (a) sexual discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Count I); (b) sexual harassment more.

Summary: 369 F. Supp. The Sports Authority contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because the doctrine of attractive nuisance has been abolished in Illinois, the danger of falling from the pogo stick was open and obvious, the claims are barred by the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act, and Jesse assumed the risk of being injured by choosing to use the pogo stick inside the store. Santaella v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 123 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir.1997). 2d 202 (1986); more.

Summary: 137 F. Supp. I. Introduction On February 9, 2001, John Waeltz and Herbert Johnson, Jr. filed a putative class action suit in this Court against the Delta Pilots Retirement Plan, a defined benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or "ERISA," 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.[1] Waeltz, a retired Delta pilot who (until recently) resided in Belleville, Illinois, and Johnson, an active Delta pilot who resides in O'Fallon, Illinois, allege that the Delta Pilots Retirement Plan more.

Summary: 755 F. Supp. *831 Daryl F. Sohn, John R. Halpern, Goldstein & Price, St. Louis, Mo., for Mays Towing Co., Inc. The Court denied defendants' prior motion for summary judgment on the ground that summary judgment would not lie, because plaintiff was seeking recovery in tort only for damages to property other than the engines themselves. Munson v. Friske, 754 F.2d 683, 690 (7th Cir.1985). See Rule 56(e); Posey v. Skyline Corp., 702 F.2d 102, 105 (7th Cir.)v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 733 F.2d 813 ( more.

Summary: 486 F. Supp. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on the basis of Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 373 F.3d 847 (7th Cir.2004), that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) did not preclude appellate review of the Court's remand order. The Disher I court held further that, on the basis of Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 403 F.3d 478 (7th Cir.2005), the claims of Disher and the proposed class were precluded by SLUSA and ordered the Court to vacate the remand order and to more.

Summary: 190 F. Supp. Williams claims that, after work-related injuries, Eastside failed to reasonably accommodate those injuries by not awarding him a permanent light-duty position (Count 1), and by later firing him because of his accommodation request (Count 2). F. Williams' Requested Accommodation Williams admits he cannot perform the job of Driver/Warehouseman without an accommodation. See E.E. O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir.2000); McPhaul v. Board of Com'rs of Madison more.

Summary: 402 F. Supp. At that time, the Seventh Circuit ordered this Court to consider whether the credibility of the Government's main witness in the suppression hearing — Collinsville, Illinois police officer Michael Reichert — was affected by evidence that Reichert was under criminal investigation for allegedly selling counterfeit Oakley sunglasses. See United States v. Zambrana, 428 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.2005). This Court concluded that although the arresting officer, Reichert, had probable cause to more.

Summary: 50 F. Supp. 2d 830 (1999) SUNRISE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, d/b/a SunRise Care and Rehabilitation for University, Plaintiff, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. This case arises from action taken by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services against SunRise to terminate its participation in Medicare programs after various deficiencies were found by the Illinois Department of Public Health as a result of a series of inspections at SunRise. The more.

Summary: 646 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (2009) Vernon Lee ANDERSON, Sr., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Diane L. HACKETT, executor of the Estate of Paul Sauget, deceased, et al., Defendants. al., St. Louis, MO, Jennifer M. Storipan, Richard F. Ricci, Lowenstein, Sandler et. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, alleging that Defendants released hazardous substances from release sites in St. more.

Summary: 143 B.R. 527 (1992) In re William Franklin CHENOWETH and Charmaine Elizabeth Chenoweth, Debtors. Tamalou WILLIAMS, Trustee, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Charmaine Elizabeth CHENOWETH, J.C. Smothers, Independent Executor of the Estate of Seville Crenshaw, deceased, and Scott Chenoweth, Defendants. OPINION FOREMAN, Senior District Judge: Before the Court are the consolidated appeals of Charmaine Elizabeth Chenoweth, J.C. Smothers, and Scott Chenoweth. The will further provided that if Charmaine more.

Summary: 610 F. Supp. 2d 958 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SHANRIE CO., INC., Dan Sheils, Netemeyer Engineering Associates, Inc., Forest Hills, L.P., The Mark Twain Trust, Pamela Bauer, and Brian Bauer, Defendants, and Netemeyer Engineering Associates, Inc., Forest Hills, L.P., Mark Twain Trust, Pamela Bauer, and Brian Bauer, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Rhutasel and Associates, Inc., L & S Builders Design, Inc., Henderson Associates Architects, Inc., Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, more.

Summary: 676 F. Supp. Peek v. Ciccone, 288 F. Supp. Petitioner's religious beliefs do not in any way alter his legal rights or responsibilities before any court in this nation, Africa v. Anderson, 510 F. Supp.

Summary: 596 F. Supp. John B. Gunn, Walker & Williams, P.C., Richard F. Nash, Gundlach, Lee, Eggmann, Boyle & Roessler, Belleville, Ill., for defendant. In Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 324 N.E.2d 338, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859 (1974), the Court of Appeals of New York, which had previously abolished parent-child immunity, held that there was nonetheless no parental liability either directly or for contribution for negligent supervision simply because there was no cognizable tort of negligent supervision. 2d more.

Summary: 658 F. Supp. In Count 8, Plaintiff claims that Defendants unconstitutionally retaliated against him by (a) exposing him to excessive cold conditions in December 2004; (b) refusing to allow him commissary privileges to which he was entitled; (c) damaging certain items of his personal property; and (d) refusing to process his grievances. In Count 9, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to retaliate against him for the lawsuit and grievances referred to in Count 8 by (a) more.

Summary: 461 F. Supp. LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.1995) (quoting FDIC v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir.1986)). See also Gray v. Remley, No. 1:03CV421, 2004 WL 951485, at *5-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2004) (refusing to permit amendment of a notice of removal to allege federal bankruptcy jurisdiction, *786 where the original notice of removal contained no such allegations, and the time to remove had expired); Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Pate, 81 F. Supp. 2d 509, more.

Summary: 308 B.R. 339 (2004) In re CHEMETCO, INC., Debtor. The questions before the Court in this adversary proceeding are whether the defendants are entitled to a jury trial of the issues raised in the plaintiff trustee's preference complaint, and whether they have waived such right based on a failure to timely seek withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy Court. On November 7, 2003, the plaintiff filed a complaint to recover an alleged preferential transfer made by the debtor to the defendants. A more.

Published Opinion | Federal District, Federal, | District Court Sd Illinois | cited by: 1 Primary Sources | citing: 19
Summary: 996 F. Supp. Munson v. Friske, 754 F.2d 683, 690 (7th Cir.1985). See Rule 56(e); Posey v. Skyline Corp., 702 F.2d 102, 105 (7th Cir.)2d 262 (1983), cited in Shlay v. Montgomery, 802 F.2d 918, 920 (7th Cir.1986). Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Taylor Machine Works, Inc., 125 F.3d 468 (7th Cir.1997), citing Heller Int'l Corp. v. Sharp, 974 F.2d 850, 856 (7th Cir.1992). First, the Court notes that the policy exclusion at issue in this case is similar to the exclusion in Allstate, 16 F.3d 222, and more.