Legal Opinion
Berens v. Ludwig
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided May 22, 1997No. 96 C 3534PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ALESIA, District Judge.
Before the court is plaintiff Mark H. Berens’ motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the reasons that follow, the court denies Berens’ motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The court fully set out the facts underlying Berens’ cause of action in its memorandum opinion and order, dated February 13, 1997, granting summary judgment against Berens and for defendant Comptroller of the Currency. See Berens v. Ludwig, 953 F.Supp. 249 (N.D.Ill.1997). All of those facts need not be repeated here, but the court will…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gorenstein Enterprises, Inc., Sam Gorenstein, and David Gorenstein v. Quality Care-Usa, Inc. And David A. ScheinmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Northside Iron and Metal Company, Inc. v. Dobson and Johnson, Inc., and the Third National BankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- Delta Mining Corporation v. Big Rivers Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Burdell W. Brekken and Burdette G. Brekken v. Reader's Digest Special Products, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1965
- Yabsley v. ConoverDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mark H. Berens v. Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, and Marquette Bank, N.A., as Successor in Interest to Marquette Bank Shakopee, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- Cheng v. California Pacific BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999