Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Edmund Brixen v. USA
as 23-1297
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDMUND J. BRIXEN
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Michael Shakman, et al v. International Brotherhood, et al
as 19-2772
Defendant:
CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL, RICHARD M. DALEY, J.B. PRITZKER, Governor of the State of Illinois and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
NOREEN LANAHAN, PAUL M. LURIE, KENNETH AYERS and others
Appellant:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 700
USA v. Edmund Brixen
as 18-1636
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
EDMUND J. BRIXEN
Edmund Hodges v. USA
as 17-1869
Petitioner - Appellant:
EDMUND HODGES
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-1596
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Robert Wilson v. IDFPR, et al
as 16-1831
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT LANCE WILSON, D.O.
Defendant - Appellee:
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ANDREW GORCHYNSKY, MITRA B. KALELKAR and others
Estate of Edmund M. Carman v. Daniel Tinkes, et al
as 13-3846
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ESTATE OF EDMUND M. CARMAN
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL B. TINKES, ALDRIDGE ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED and DPR IRON, LLC
John Ventre, et al v. Edmund Lopinski, Jr.
as 11-2879
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JOHN VENTRE, individually and as representative on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, A New York Corporation and SALVAGE INVESTORS, L.L.C., Member of the Plaintiff Class
Defendant - Appellant:
EDMUND J. LOPINSKI, JR.
Anthony Wheeler v. Troy Mayes, et al
as 10-8043
Petitioner:
ANTHONY WHEELER
Respondent:
EDMUND BUTKIEWICZ, KEITH LIFTER, TROY MAYES and others
Anthony Wheeler v. Troy Mayes, et al
as 10-8022
Petitioner:
ANTHONY WHEELER
Respondent:
TROY MAYES, EDMUND BUTKIEWICZ, KEITH LIFTER and others
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.
