Anthimos Gogos v. AMS-Mechanical System, Incorpo
ANTHIMOS GOGOS |
AMS-MECHANICAL SYSTEM, INCORPORATED |
13-2571 |
July 18, 2013 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
Jobs |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 702134649 Filed opinion of the court PER CURIAM. We VACATE the dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On remand the district court should consider Gogos's application to proceed in forma pauperis and, in light of his limited education and English fluency, his request for counsel. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge; Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge and Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge. [6538668-1] [6538668] [13-2571] |
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Search for this case: Anthimos Gogos v. AMS-Mechanical System, Incorpo | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff - appellant: ANTHIMOS GOGOS | |
Represented By: | Anthimos Gogos |
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 - appellee: AMS-MECHANICAL SYSTEM, INCORPORATED | |
Represented By: | |
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.