Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Reginald Clay
| UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
| REGINALD CLAY |
| 25-8011 |
| June 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 14, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Notification from the District Court that the appeal docketing fee was received (receipt #AILNDC-23747117). [7462786-2] [7462786] [25-8011] (JR) [Entered: 07/14/2025 03:51 PM] |
| Case transferred from Miscellaneous Docket No. 25-8011. [7462946-2] [7462946] [25-2185, 25-8011] (PS) [Entered: 07/15/2025 10:28 AM] |
Filing 8
ORDER re: 1. Petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). 2. Answer to defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). 3. Motion for leave to amend answer to defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). [ # 7 ] motion to correct the response is GRANTED. The petition for permission to appeal is GRANTED. The petitioner shall pay the required docket fees to the clerk of the district court within fourteen days from the entry of this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d)(1). Once the district court notifies this court that the fees have been paid, the appeal will be entered on this courts general docket. The parties may move for certification of the question to the Illinois Supreme Court in their briefs. See Cir. R. 52(a). Diane S. Sykes, Chief Judge; Thomas L. Kirsch II, Circuit Judge and Nancy L. Maldonado, Circuit Judge. [8] [7462290] [25-8011] (CG) [Entered: 07/10/2025 03:22 PM]
|
| FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 07/10/2025 Miscellaneous Final Order sent to the District Court Clerk. [7462310-2] [7462310] [25-8011] (CG) [Entered: 07/10/2025 03:49 PM] |
| Filing 7 Motion filed by Respondent Reginald Clay to correct Answer to Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). [7] [7461853] [25-8011] (Edelman, Daniel) [Entered: 07/09/2025 11:31 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Answer by Respondent Reginald Clay to Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Companys Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Submitted appellee brief by Daniel A. Edelman for Respondent Reginald Clay. [6] NOTE: Access to this entry is limited to counsel of record. Once the document is approved by the court, it will be filed onto the court's docket as a separate entry which will be open to the public. [7461737] [25-8011]--[Edited 07/08/2025 by PS - docket text updated to reflect correct filing type.] (Edelman, Daniel) [Entered: 07/08/2025 04:48 PM] |
| Filing 5 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Dulijaza (Julie) Clark for Respondent Reginald Clay. [5] [7461729] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [25-8011]--[Edited 07/08/2025 by PS - docket updated to reflect the addition of counsel.] (Clark, Dulijaza) [Entered: 07/08/2025 04:17 PM] |
| Filing 4 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Daniel A. Edelman for Respondent Reginald Clay. [4] [7461719] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [25-8011] (Edelman, Daniel) [Entered: 07/08/2025 04:11 PM] |
|
Filing 2
ORDER re: Petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). [ # 1 ] Respondent shall file a response to the petition by July 8, 2025. VXK [2] [7459222] [25-8011] (PS) [Entered: 06/24/2025 10:33 AM]
|
| Filing 1 Petition for Permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) docketed. [1] [7458922] [25-8011] (CG) [Entered: 06/23/2025 09:36 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
