M.O.W. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., an Illinois corporation; One Magnificent Mile Partnership, an Illinois general partnership; One Magnificent Mile Condominium Partnership, an Illinois general partnership; Lomm Commercial Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership; the Levy Organization, Inc., an Illinois corporation; Lawrence F. Levy; Sheffield Properties, Inc., a California corporation; Lomm Condominium Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership; the Levy Organization Development Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation; and Newcastle Properties, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
FIREMAN'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, a New Jersey corporation; Milwaukee Marble Co., Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants.
MILWAUKEE MARBLE CO., INC., Plaintiff
v.
SCHAL ASSOCIATES, INC., and M.O.W. Construction Co., Inc., Defendants.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 2, 1987.
December 2, 1987.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Bruce S. Sperling, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling, Slater & Spitz, Roger Pascal, James A. Clark, Kevin D. Evans, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs M.O.W. Const. Co., Inc., et al.
Dan L. Boho, Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, Ill., for defendants Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., et al.
James R. Clark, Leonard G. Leverson, Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, Wis., Dan Boho, Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff Milwaukee Marble Co., Inc.
Roger Pascal, Kevin D. Evans, James A. Clark, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling, Slater & Spitz, Richard G. Schultz, Jeff D. Harris, Douglas R. Stevens, Foran, Wiss & Schultz, Chicago, Ill., Michael Ash, Michael B. Apfeld, Carol S. Josten, Godfrey & Kayn, S.C., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants Schal Associates, Inc. and M.O.W. Const. Co., Inc.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.
ORDER
BRIAN BARNETT DUFF, District Judge.
The Supreme Court has articulated a number of factors which a federal district court should consider when deciding whether to stay a case in deference to pending parellel proceedings in the state court. These include: (1) the convenience or inconvenience of the federal forum; (2) the order in which the suits were brought; and (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal...
Let's get started
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.
