Legal Opinion

Leathers v. Peoria Toyota-Volvo

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Decided June 1, 1993No. 92-1430PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

McDADE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the Defendant has failed to respond pursuant to Local Rule 2.9(B), the Court has reviewed the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion without benefit of a response and concludes that summary judgment must be granted as a matter of law. 1

I. BACKGROUND

This action was filed pursuant to the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”), specifically § 1638(a)(9) and the regulations promulgated thereto. 2 Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in the amount of $1,000…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Dan Beraha, M.D. v. Baxter Health Care CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
  5. Edsel Gusman, Cross-Appellant v. Unisys Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Van Jackson v. Check 'N Go of Illinois, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2000
  2. Susan v. Chevy Chase BankDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2007
  3. Clay v. JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
  4. McDonald v. Checks-N-Advance, Inc. (In Re Ferrell)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  5. Van Jackson v. Check 'N Go of Illinois, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2000

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

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

Powered by the Exa API