Nadolski v. Associates in Sleep Medicine
Plaintiff: David Nadolski
Defendant: Associates in Sleep Medicine
Case Number: 1:2014cv01294
Filed: February 21, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: Thomas M. Durkin
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
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
February 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 44 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment 27 is granted. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 2/3/2016:Mailed notice(srn, )
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: Nadolski v. Associates in Sleep Medicine
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Nadolski
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 ]
Defendant: Associates in Sleep Medicine
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?