Business Pro Communications v. Panavise Products, Inc.
Plaintiff: Business Pro Communications
Defendant: Panavise Products, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2007cv00499
Filed: January 26, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Lake
Presiding Judge: Charles R. Norgle
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 23, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 54 OPINION and Order Signed by the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr on 10/23/2008.(ef, )
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: Business Pro Communications v. Panavise Products, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Panavise Products, Inc.
Represented By: Joseph A. Walker
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 ]
Plaintiff: Business Pro Communications
Represented By: Phillip A. Bock
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?