Hudson v. Harrington

Hudson v. Harrington

Petitioner:	Robert Hudson
Respondent:	Rick Harrington
Case Number:	1:2013cv00678
Filed:	January 28, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Randolph
Presiding Judge:	Suzanne B. Conlon
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
July 13, 2016	Filing 90 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Petitioner Hudson's motion to enforce 70 is denied, but the Court grants a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c ), to the extent that one is needed. This order terminates the motion and the case in the district court, so this is a final decision. The Court will enter a separate Rule 58(a) document on a judgment form that states that the motion is denied.Emailed notice(slb, )
August 27, 2014	Filing 45 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Petitioner Robert Hudson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted. As explained in the Opinion, the State must reoffer the twe nty-year imprisonment plea offer by 10/09/2014. If the State decides to appeal, the State may move to stay the writ. Petitioner's motion to expand evidentiary record 32 is denied as unnecessary. See Opinion at 22 n.4. Status hearing of 09/03/2014 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice(slb, )

Date Filed

Document Text

July 13, 2016

Filing 90 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Petitioner Hudson's motion to enforce 70 is denied, but the Court grants a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c ), to the extent that one is needed. This order terminates the motion and the case in the district court, so this is a final decision. The Court will enter a separate Rule 58(a) document on a judgment form that states that the motion is denied.Emailed notice(slb, )

August 27, 2014

Filing 45 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Petitioner Robert Hudson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted. As explained in the Opinion, the State must reoffer the twe nty-year imprisonment plea offer by 10/09/2014. If the State decides to appeal, the State may move to stay the writ. Petitioner's motion to expand evidentiary record 32 is denied as unnecessary. See Opinion at 22 n.4. Status hearing of 09/03/2014 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice(slb, )

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: Hudson v. Harrington
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Hudson
Represented By:	Michael P. Doss
Represented By:	Daniel M Greenfield
Represented By:	Jane E. Raley
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 ]
Respondent: Rick Harrington
Represented By:	Erica R. Seyburn
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?