13 Cited authorities

Oto v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
224 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,322 times
Holding that a manifest error "is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent."
Ahmed v. Ashcroft
388 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 279 times
Holding that error was harmless where it did not affect denial of motion for reconsideration
Blair v. Equifax Check Services
181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999) Cited 233 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 does not toll the time to appeal an interlocutory order, a timely-filed motion for reconsideration of a class certification order nevertheless “defers the time for appeal until after the district judge has disposed of the motion”
Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co.
679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 122 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that consent must come from the current subscriber, and that a prior customer's authority to consent lapses when a cell phone number is reassigned
CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Business Media, Inc.
606 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 110 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that 2008 FCC ruling had force of law
Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
748 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Minn. 2010) Cited 95 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "information about what [defendant's] procedures required it to do to avoid violating the TCPA is relevant to whether [defendant's] TCPA violation was knowing or reckless"
Exelon Generation Co. v. Local 15, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL–CIO
676 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 39 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "vendor" in 10 C.F.R. § 73.56, which concerns unescorted access authorization programs, does not include labor arbitrators
Leckler v. Cashcall, Inc.
No. C 07-04002 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008) Cited 18 times
Holding district court had no jurisdiction to review FCC Declaratory Ruling by action of the Hobbs Act, and vacating prior opinion
Leckler v. Cashcall, Inc.
554 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 10 times 3 Legal Analyses
No. C 07-04002 SI. May 20, 2008. Douglas James Campion, Law Office Douglas J. Campion, San Diego, CA, Joshua B. Swigart, Robert L. Hyde, Hyde Swigart, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs. Jesse Sequoia Finlayson, Michael Raymond Williams, Finlayson, Augustini Williams LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. On May 14, 2008, the Court heard argument on the parties' cross-motions
Brown v. Navarro
No. 09 C 3814 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 11, 2012)
No. 09 C 3814 09-11-2012 WILLIAM D. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff, v. Blue Island Police Officer F. NAVARRO (Star #163), Blue Island Police Officer J. MURRAY, Blue Island Police Officer DELGADILLO, Blue Island Police Officer K. SISK, and CITY OF BLUE ISLAND ILLINOIS, Defendants. John J. Tharp Judge John J. Tharp MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff William D. Brown moves the Court to reconsider Judge Kendall's rulings of March 30, 2012 and June 4, 2012, which resulted in the denial of Brown's purported
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 2344 - Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service
28 U.S.C. § 2344 Cited 355 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[a]ny party aggrieved by the final order may . . . file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies"

Thrasher-Lyon v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that a manifest error "is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent."

Holding that error was harmless where it did not affect denial of motion for reconsideration

Holding that, although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 does not toll the time to appeal an interlocutory order, a timely-filed motion for reconsideration of a class certification order nevertheless “defers the time for appeal until after the district judge has disposed of the motion”

Holding that consent must come from the current subscriber, and that a prior customer's authority to consent lapses when a cell phone number is reassigned

Holding that 2008 FCC ruling had force of law

Holding that "information about what [defendant's] procedures required it to do to avoid violating the TCPA is relevant to whether [defendant's] TCPA violation was knowing or reckless"

Holding that the term "vendor" in 10 C.F.R. § 73.56, which concerns unescorted access authorization programs, does not include labor arbitrators

Holding district court had no jurisdiction to review FCC Declaratory Ruling by action of the Hobbs Act, and vacating prior opinion

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Stating that "[a]ny party aggrieved by the final order may . . . file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies"