Case law

Quinlan v. Fairman

663 F. Supp. 24 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 1987

THE REQUIREMENTS OF WOLFF v. McDonnell The Supreme Court in Wolff v. … See Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105, 1115-16 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1282 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984). V.

Murata Manufacturing Co. v. Bel Fuse Inc.

445 F. Supp. 2d 938 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2006

See, e.g., Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2004). Claim construction is a question of law for the court to decide. See Markman v. … Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc).

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp.

692 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 12, 1988

On October 14, 1987 OMC appealed to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”). … Board of Education of Valley View Community Unit School District No. 365U v.

Bridges v. City of North Chicago

402 F. Supp. 418 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1975

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 , 91 S.Ct. 849 , 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1970); United States v. City of Chicago, 385 F.Supp. 543 (N.D.Ill.1974). 3. … Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra. ORDER 1. Defendants are hereby ordered to offer the Plaintiffs, CLARK, REID and WOMACK employment as police officers on the North Chicago Police Force.

Nelson ex rel. Estate of Boogaard v. National Hockey League

20 F. Supp. 3d 650 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 2014

See Banks v. … See Atwater v.

American Postal Workers Union, O'Hare Midway "T" Local 7011 v. American Postal Workers Union

62 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 18, 2014

Comm. v. … the executive board’s discretion.

Westermayer v. Pullman Co.

360 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 20, 1973

, 1968 mediation by the National Mediation Board (“Board”) had failed to bring about an amicable settlement and the Board’s request for arbitration pursuant to Section 8 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. 5. … Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 323 U.S. 210 , 65 S.Ct. 235 , 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944); Neal v. System Board of Adjustment, 348 F.2d 722 (8th Cir. 1965); Fingar v.

E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Forest Preserve District

629 F. Supp. 973 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 18, 1986

Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 , 97 S.Ct. 568, 572 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1979). District (See Ill. … But County of Lake v.

Wiskup v. Liberty Buick Co., Inc.

953 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 1997

See Kedziora v. … Following the Board’s lead, several courts also found that the Rule of 78s was not a penalty under the TILA. See, e.g., Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 493 F.2d 135 (9th Cir.1974).

Fournier v. Lufthansa German Airlines

191 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 2002

Inc. v. … Lehmann v. Brown, 230 F.3d 916 , 919 (7th Cir.2000).

Ponce v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter RR Corp.

103 F. Supp. 2d 1051 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2000

See id.; see also Corder v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 162 F.3d 924, 927 (7th Cir.1998); Flaherty v. Gas Research Inst., 31 F.3d 451, 453 (7th Cir.1994); Waldridge v. … C.The METRA Train and The Boarding Area.

Boogaard v. National Hockey League

255 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2017

Memorandum Opinion and Order Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge Len and Joanne Boogaard, the personal representatives of the estate of Derek Boogaard, bring this suit against the National Hockey League and its Board … See Smith v.

Government Employees Corp. v. McKinney

92 B.R. 317 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1988

In re Brown, 56 B.R. at 295 . In addition, some authority exists for GEC’s proposition. … See also In re Seiden, 174 F.2d 586 (2nd Cir.1949); Colwell v. Epstein, 142 F.2d 138 (1st Cir.1944).

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. Technology Research Group, LLC

276 F.R.D. 237 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 2011

Kyles v. J.K Guardian Sec. Sews., 2006 WL 2349238 , at *8 (N.D.Ill. … Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 384 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir.2004).

Permutt v. Armstrong

112 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 1953

Board to report for induction on January 15, 1953. … McGrath v.

Alexander v. Continental Motor Werks, Inc.

933 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 16, 1996

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 , 104 S.Ct. 2229 , 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Doe on Behalf of Doe v. St. … As explained by the Board: For the most part, commenters agreed with the Board’s proposed treatment.

Stevens v. Tillman

568 F. Supp. 289 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 1983

The McCutcheon court granted an absolute privilege to statements because they were made to a trial committee of the Board of Education and were pertinent to pending litigation. McCutcheon v. … Hannigan v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 410 F.2d 285, 291 (7th Cir.1969) (citations omitted). It is undeniable that Stevens is a party to an employment contract with the Chicago Board of Education.

Graham v. Gendex Medical X-Ray, Inc.

176 F.R.D. 288 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1997

See Woods v. … In Shannon v.

United States v. Weiner

392 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 17, 1975

See United States v. Brown, 389 F.Supp. 959 , S.D.N.Y., 1975); Sandello v. Curran, M 11-188 (S.D.N.Y., 2/27/75); United States v. … Judge Milton Pollack’s decision in United States v. Brown, supra, stands in direct contradiction to Crispino . We believe that Brown is the better view.

Garduno v. Quaker Oats Co.

863 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 1, 1994

Brown, a non-Mexican-American, was dismissed for falsifying his expense reports. Garduño provided information to Quaker during the investigation of Brown. Brown was fired at some time before the Garduño matter arose. … Both Knox and Brown were agents of Quaker in their respective capacities, and the statements of both Knox and Brown concerned matters within the scope of their employment.