Lane v. City of Chicago et al
Plaintiff: Cynthia Lane
Defendant: City of Chicago, Officer John Doe and Officer Richard Roe
Case Number: 1:2015cv01920
Filed: March 4, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: Amy J. St. Eve
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
September 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 346 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendant Sampim's motion for summary judgment 302 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant Officers Bowery, Zodo, and Slechter's motion for summary judgment 303 is granted in part and denied in pa rt. Defendant City's Motion to bar the opinions of Plaintiff's Expert 308 is granted. Defendant City's motion for summary judgment 309 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff has dismissed with prejudice the following clai ms against Officers Bowery, Zodo and Sampim: Count I (unconstitutional seizure), Count III (wrongful death), Count IV (survival), and Count V (funeral expenses). Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice Count VI (intentional infliction of emotional distres s) against all the individual defendants. The Court dismisses with prejudice Count VIII (battery) against Bowery, Zodo and Sampim. The Court also dismisses with prejudice Count VII (conspiracy) against Bowery, leaving no pending claims against Bowery . Therefore the remaining claims for trial are: the excessive force claim (Count I) against Officer Slechter; state-law claims for wrongful death, survival, funeral expenses and battery (Counts III, IV, and VIII) against Slechter; conspiracy (Count V II) against Slechter, Zodo and Sampim, and the Monell claim (based on lack of training regarding foot chases and code of silence) (Count II) and respondeat superior and indemnification claims (Counts IX and X) against the City. Signed by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 9/23/2022. (See attached Order for further detail.)Mailed notice. (dm, )
September 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 45 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 9/2/2015:Mailed notice(kef, )
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: Lane v. City of Chicago et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cynthia Lane
Represented By: Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino
Represented By: Janine L. Hoft
Represented By: Shubra Ohri
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: City of Chicago
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: Officer John Doe
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: Officer Richard Roe
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?