You are here

Counties Served

Memorial Proceeding for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

CHIEF JUDGE DIANE P. WOOD announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will have a Memorial Proceeding for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday, December 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., in the James B. Parsons Ceremonial Courtroom on the 25th Floor of the Dirksen Federal Building at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Justice Stevens served as a Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from 1970 to 1975 and then as the Circuit Justice from 1975 to 2010 while serving on the Supreme Court. 

16-CV-0987 Edith Mae May v. Sara Christain 16-CV-1131 Edith Mae May v. Jason Jesky 16-CV-1150 Edith Mae May v. Ron Kellar 16-CV-1552 Edith Mae May v. Tightwad Magazine, et al 16-CV-1669 Edith Mae May v. Charles Brown, et al

16-CV-0987 Edith Mae May v. Sara Christain
16-CV-1131 Edith Mae May v. Jason Jesky
16-CV-1150 Edith Mae May v. Ron Kellar
16-CV-1552 Edith Mae May v. Tightwad Magazine, et al
16-CV-1669 Edith Mae May v. Charles Brown, et al

Filing Fee Motion

15-CV-1157 Eaton Corporation v. Westport Insurance Corporation et al

15-CV-1157 Eaton Corporation v. Westport Insurance Corporation et al

Real Party in Interest Motion

The court addressed the meaning of “real party in interest,” as that phrase is used in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a). The court concluded that Rule 17(a) generally does not apply to defendants. The court also concluded that to the extent Rule 17(a) applies to defendants, it does not require the defendant’s indemnitor to be substituted for the defendant as the real party in interest.

17-CV-1701 Daniels v. Klemors et al

17-CV-1701 Daniels v. Klemors et al

Decision and Order

Section 1983 claim. Three of the four defendants in the case were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that they acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when he threated self-harm. However, one defendant remains because the record did not establish a lack of objective harm. The lawyer would resolve the remaining claim.

Pages