Legal Opinion

Stedman v. Hoogendoorn, Talbot, Davids, Godfrey & Milligan

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided February 18, 1994No. 92 C 5670PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

Remaining defendants Hoogendoorn, Talbot, Davids, Godfrey & Milligan (a Chicago law firm referred to here as “Hoogendoorn Firm”) and Edward Willey d/b/a Edward Willey Commercial Investigations (‘Willey”) have moved for summary judgment in this multi-count diversity-of-eitizenship action brought against them by W. David Stedman (“Stedman”). Their motions target all of Stedman’s claims as advanced against Hoogendoorn Firm and Willey in the Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). To prepare the motions for resolution, all the parties…

2Cases cited26 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. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Bank Leumi Le-Israel, B.M., a Foreign Corporation v. Dennis Lee, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  5. Pelham v. GriesheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Magellan International Corp. v. Salzgitter Handel GmbHDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1999
  2. Rousey v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API