Cases

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

975 F.Supp. 1055 (1997) Angelo RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. The CITY of CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, defendant. No. 95 C 5371. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 11, 1997. *1056 *1057 Kevin J. Todd, David Shaneyfelt, Bruce J. Van Heukelem, Hoogendorn, Talbot

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge Plaintiff Leonardo Rodriguez brings this action against the City of Chicago (the "City"), his former employer; the City's Human Resources Board (the "HRB"); the HRB's chairman, Salvador A. Cicero; a member of the HRB, Samuel L. Evans Jr.; and a hearing officer at the HRB, Roger J. Balla. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected him to an unconstitutional drug test and used that tes

21 Ill. App.3d 623 (1974) 316 N.E.2d 88 JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 58876. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (5th Division). July 26, 1974. *624 Lane, Falasz, Pollman & Munday, of Chicago (Fred Lane and John Munday, of counsel), for appe

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge, United States District Court I. BACKGROUND The eleven Plaintiffs are current or former Chicago police officers who at one time were assigned to the Security Specialist position. As Security Specialists they provided protection to former Mayor Richard M. Daley, as well as to visiting dignitaries. Unlike other pol

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER HARRY D. LEINENWEBER, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 52). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion is denied, and Plaintiffs Motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND

687 F.Supp.2d 1270 (2010) Lawrence RODRIGUEZ, Steven J. Duran, Greg Miera, and Rose Marie Neal, On behalf of themselves and other present and former City employees, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant. No. CIV 07-0901 JB/ACT. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. December 4, 2009. *1271 Paul Livingston, Placitas,

467 F.Supp.2d 823 (2006) Michael MARCAVAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. No. 06 C 3858. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. December 14, 2006. *824 *825 Andy Robert Norman, Mauck & Baker, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Andrew W.

OPINION OF THE COURT JORDAN, Circuit Judge. In this mortgage loan discrimination case, a putative class of minority borrowers seeks permission under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to appeal the denial of final approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of the parties’ proposed settlement and cer

POSNER, Chief Judge, concurring. It is a matter of judgment whether to base the decision of an appeal on a broad ground, on a narrow ground, or on both, when both types of ground are available. If the judges are dubious about the broad ground, then they will do well to decide only on the narrow ground; but if they are confident of the broad ground, they should base decision on that ground (as well as on the

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEVIN, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Defendant City of Chicago’s (“City”) Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint at Law, containing a § 1983 “official policy” claim against the City. The City’s motion is filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons

2025 IL App (1st) 232174 No. 1-23-2174 Opinion filed March 24, 2025 FIRST DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT

8 F.Supp.2d 809 (1998) Mary WESTPHAL, and Saundra Cunningham, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Thomas P. Sadler, individually and as agent of the City of Chicago, and Matt Rodriguez, individually and as agent of the City of Chicago, Defendants. No. 97 C 5892. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

HARLINGTON WOOD, JR., Circuit Judge. On March 20, 1997, Kolawole Ashafa filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Chicago, the Superintendent for the Department of Police for the City, three named Chicago police officers, and four unnamed police officers as defendants. Ashafa alleged that his constitutional rights were violated during a confrontation with police on August 11, 1994. The district court dismi

146 F.3d 459 Kolawole ASHAFA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CITY OF CHICAGO; Matthew Rodriguez, Superintendent of theDepartment of Police for the City of Chicago; MatthewCraig; James Cruz; Ross Takaki; and Four Unnamed PoliceOfficers, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-2594. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. Argued Jan. 22, 1998.Decided June

957 F.Supp. 1055 (1997) Beatriz M. RODRIGUEZ, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Jose Rodriguez, Deceased, and Julian Ramon Rodriguez, a minor, by his mother and next of friend, Beatriz M. Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF MILWAUKEE, a municipal corporation and body politic, Defendant. No. 95-C-1232. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. March 7, 19

2023 IL App (1st) 211353 SIXTH DIVISION February 10, 2023 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT No. 1-21-1353 ROBERT GLOVER, )

968 F.Supp. 1278 (1997) Joseph LARA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Matt L. Rodriguez, Raymond S. Risley, Ronald Garcia, and Richard Aguinaga, Defendants. No. 95 C 7231. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 25, 1997. *1279 *1280 *128

779 N.E.2d 875 (2002) 202 Ill.2d 36 269 Ill.Dec. 21 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Joseph E. BIRKETT et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. The CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellant and Cross-Appellee. No. 93978. Supreme Court of Illinois. October 18, 2002. *877 Mara S. George