Legal Opinion

Rae v. Klusak

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided January 11, 1993No. 91 C 6239PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

At this point plaintiff Thomas Rae (“Rae”), by filing his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), has made his third attempt to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). After having unsuccessfully resisted the effort of Rae’s counsel to present that revised pleading to begin with, defendants have now filed what they label as a motion to dismiss the SAC with prejudice. However, both that motion and its supporting memorandum and supplement clearly reflect that the only thing that defendants are really targeting is Rae’s proposed…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Craig S. Strauss v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, and Chicago Police Officer John DoeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Feldman v. American Asset Finance, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Household Commercial Financial Services, Inc. v. TrumpDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
  3. Thomas v. DartDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API