1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. STROHL v. VILLAGE OF FOX RIVER GROVE
 

STROHL v. VILLAGE OF FOX RIVER GROVE

Case No. 13 C 50352.

Michael J. Strohl and Judy K. Strohl, Plaintiff, v. Village of Fox River Grove, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division.

June 17, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael J. Strohl, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Thomas Hanlon , Law Offices of Robert T. Hanlon & Associates, P.C..

Judy K Strohl, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Thomas Hanlon , Law Offices of Robert T. Hanlon & Associates, P.C..

Village Of Fox River Grove, Defendant, represented by Thomas George DiCianni , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Julie A. Tappendorf , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C..

Robert J. Nunamaker, Defendant, represented by Thomas George DiCianni , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Julie A. Tappendorf , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C..

Suzanne Blohm, Defendant, represented by Thomas George DiCianni , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Julie A. Tappendorf , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C..

Joanna Colletti, Defendant, represented by Thomas George DiCianni , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Julie A. Tappendorf , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C..

Steve Knar, Defendant, represented by Thomas George DiCianni , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Julie A. Tappendorf , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C..

Michael Schiestel, Defendant, represented by Thomas George DiCianni , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Julie A. Tappendorf , Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C..

ORDER

PHILIP G. REINHARD, District Judge.

For the reasons stated below, the defendant Village of Fox River Grover's motion to dismiss [18] is granted. Count I is dismissed with prejudice. Count II is dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed. Plaintiffs are permitted to re-file their takings claim if they exhaust available state remedies.

STATEMENT-OPINION

On September 13, 2013, plaintiffs...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases