Pitale v. Holestine
Plaintiff: Anthony J. Pitale
Defendant: Dan Holestine
Case Number: 1:2011cv00921
Filed: February 9, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: XX US, Outside the State of IL
Presiding Judge: Edmond E. Chang
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 37 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 2/27/2012:Mailed notice(slb, )
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pitale v. Holestine
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Anthony J. Pitale
Represented By: Mark David Hansen
Represented By: Anthony Sargent Graefe
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dan Holestine
Represented By: James Vincent Garvey
Represented By: Joshua David Nichols
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?