Legal Opinion

Neville v. True

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided September 12, 1995No. 93 C 814PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

NORGLE, District Judge:

Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on February 5, 1993. On August 6, 1993, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On August 23, 1993, the court converted Defendants’ motion to one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants were instructed by the court to file the requisite statements of material facts pursuant to Local…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Anthony McCoy v. James R. Gilbert, Frederick H. Aper, David Poggemoeller, Herman S. Nelson and Robert ZacharyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
  2. McCoy, Anthony v. Gilbert, James R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
  3. Reedus v. McDonoughDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API