Trudy Taylor v. Board of Education of the City, et al
| TRUDY TAYLOR, and similarly or substantially similarly situated member principals |
| BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and KAREN SAFFOLD |
| 21-1359 |
| February 26, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Trudy Taylor v. Board of Education of the City |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 31, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER: re: Appellees' motion for an order directing a pro se appellant to disclose whether her merits briefs have been prepared by a lawyer. [ # 10 ] The motion is DENIED.JPK [11] [7151045] [21-1359] (CG) [Entered: 03/31/2021 02:09 PM]
|
| Filing 10 Motion filed by Appellees Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Karen Saffold for an Order Directing a Pro Se Appellant to Disclose Whether Her Merits Briefs have Been Prepared by a Lawyer. [10] [7150462] [21-1359] (Doyle, Thomas) [Entered: 03/29/2021 02:13 PM] |
| Filing 9 Docketing Statement filed by Appellees Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Karen Saffold. Prior or Related proceedings: Yes. 17-2834; 17-1029 [9] [7150396] [21-1359]--[Edited 03/29/2021 by MM to reflect all parties filing document.] (Doyle, Thomas) [Entered: 03/29/2021 10:59 AM] |
|
Filing 8
Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellant's brief only to the extent that Appellant's brief due on or before 06/01/2021 for Trudy Taylor. Appellees' brief due on or before 07/01/2021 for Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Karen Saffold. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 07/22/2021 for Appellant Trudy Taylor. SCR [8] [7149858] [21-1359] (AG) [Entered: 03/25/2021 02:32 PM]
|
| Filing 7 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Trudy Taylor to extend time to file appellant's brief. [7] [7149723] [21-1359] (PS) [Entered: 03/25/2021 10:14 AM] |
| Filing 6 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Trudy Taylor. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [6] [7149721] [21-1359] (PS) [Entered: 03/25/2021 10:12 AM] |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: Appellant Trudy Taylor is directed to file the overdue Docketing Statement within 14 days from the date of this Rule to Show Cause. Docketing statement response due for Appellant Trudy Taylor by 03/30/2021. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 7019 0140 0000 6080 2068. [5] [7147669] [21-1359] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 10:52 AM]
|
| Filing 4 Appearance form filed by Attorney Thomas Arthur Doyle for Appellees Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Karen Saffold. [4] [7145096] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [21-1359] [Edited 03/03/2021 by AG to reflect addition of counsel] (Doyle, Thomas) [Entered: 03/03/2021 01:40 PM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: This court received notice from the District Court that the appellant paid the required docketing fee. Briefing will proceed as follows: Appellant's brief due on or before 04/01/2021 for Trudy Taylor. Appellee's brief due on or before 05/03/2021 for Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Karen Saffold. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 05/24/2021 for Appellant Trudy Taylor [3] [7144679] [21-1359] (CM) [Entered: 03/02/2021 08:46 AM]
|
| Filing 2 Filed notice from the District Court that the appeal docketing fee was received. [2] [7144678] [21-1359] (CM) [Entered: 03/02/2021 08:45 AM] |
| Filing 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee due. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Trudy Taylor by 03/05/2021. Transcript information sheet due by 03/12/2021. Fee or IFP forms due on 03/12/2021 for Appellant Trudy Taylor. [1] [7144469] [21-1359] (MM) [Entered: 03/01/2021 10:37 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
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.
