Unger v. Albany Medical Center et al
Case Number: 1:2006cv00765
Filed: June 20, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office: Albany Office
Presiding Judge: David R. Homer
Presiding Judge: Thomas J. McAvoy
Nature of Suit: Anti-Trust
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 Antitrust Litigation
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 378 DECISION AND ORDER granting in part Pltfs' 343 Motion to Exclude Portions of Expert Testimony of Robert Willig; denying Defts' 355 Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Orley Ashenfelter; denying Defts' 356 Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory Vistnes; and denying Defts' 345 Joint Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/22/2010. (amt)
July 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 377 DECISION AND ORDER denying Deft Ellis Hospital's 347 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/21/2010. (amt)
May 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 271 DECISION AND ORDER granting 254 Motion Approving the Seton Health settlement; vacating and replacing paragraph 4 of the 265 Order granting certification of the NEH Settlement Class. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 5/14/09. (amt)
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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Unger v. Albany Medical Center et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?