Prewitt v. United States Government et al
| Lacey Prewitt |
| United States Government, Jim Bushman and Anuj Partkh |
| 1:2011cv03136 |
| May 11, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| George W. Lindberg |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 10/31/2012.Mailed notice(sct, )
|
|
Filing
49
WRITTEN Opinion signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 1/23/2012: The United States' motion (Doc 43 ) for clarification is granted and the Court clarifies that Prewitt's claims are limited to claims for: (1) spoliation of evidence a nd (2) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress limited to Parikh's act of shouting at Prewitt. United States' motion (Doc 47 ) for leave to file reply is moot. Hearing on said motion, set for 1/24/2012, is stricken. (For further details see minute order.)Mailed notice(sct, )
|
|
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 12/15/2011.Mailed notice(sct, )
|
|
Filing
36
MOTION by Defendant United States Government for judgment on Count X (Haile, Jonathan)
|
|
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 10/26/2011.Mailed notice(sct, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
