Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Selective Insurance Co. of South Carolina v. City of Paris

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

October 2, 2014

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF PARIS, Defendant-Appellant, and ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US, INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee. and GORDON R. STEIDL, ET AL., Defendants

Argued June 2, 2014

Page 502

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 2:07-cv-02224 - Michael P. McCuskey, Judge.

For Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina, Plaintiff - Appellee: Christopher T. Conrad, Attorney, Wilford Conrad Llp, Barrington, IL.

For Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company, Plaintiff - Appellee: David Michael Alt, Attorney, Joseph Pozen, Attorney, Bates Carey Nicolaides Llp, Chicago, IL.

For City of Paris, Defendant - Appellant: Gregory C. Ray, Attorney, Craig & Craig, Mattoon, IL.

For GENE RAY, Chief, James Parrish, Defendant: Gregory C. Ray, Attorney, Craig & Craig, Mattoon, IL.

For Western World Insurance Group, Party-in-Interest: Richard R. Gordon, Attorney, Gordon Rappold & Miller Llc, Chicago, IL.

For Gordon R. Steidl, Party-in-Interest: Ben H. Elson, Attorney, People's Law Office, Chicago, IL.

For Herbert Whitlock, Party-in-Interest: Carrie A. Hall, Attorney, Michael Best & Friedrich Llp, Chicago, IL.

Before FLAUM and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and DOW, District Judge.[*]

OPINION

Page 503

Dow, District Judge.

On October 24, 2012, approximately 33 months after the district court granted summary judgment for Appellee Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina, terminated the case, and entered judgment, Appellant City of Paris (" City" ) filed a motion to reconsider the district court's summary judgment ruling. The City argued that the case remained open pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because certain claims were not adjudicated by the Court's ruling. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the Court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 54(b) to reconsider the final judgment that it had entered ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.