⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

4 opinions for “41 Sherbrooke Rd LLC”

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016-11-04 · Published · cited 4× · 840 F.3d 932; 96 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 213; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19959; 2016 WL 6543514
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Midwest Fence Corporation challenges federal and state programs that offer advantages in highway construction contracting to disadvantaged business enterprises, known as DBEs. For purposes of federally funded highway construction, DBEs are small businesses that are owned and managed by “individuals who are both socially and economically disadvan
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016-11-04 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 15-1827 MIDWEST FENCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United S
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015-03-24 · Published · cited 1× · 84 F. Supp. 3d 705; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36277; 2015 WL 1396376
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge, United States District Court Before the Court is a constitutional challenge to federal and state programs designed to benefit disadvantaged business entities (“DBEs”) in the highway construction industry. Plaintiff Midwest Fence (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’ or “Midwest”), a non-DBE fencing and guardrail contractor that is owned and controlled
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020-08-12 · Published · cited 24× · 969 F.3d 1020
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY OF PORTLAND, No. 18-72689 Petitioner, FCC No. v. 18-111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; CITY OF ARCADIA; CITY OF BELLEVUE; CITY OF BROOKHAVEN; CITY OF BURIEN; CITY OF BURLINGAME; CITY OF