You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Frank Thomas v. Law Firm of Simpson Cybak

Citations: 358 F.3d 446; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275Docket: 02-1113

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; February 9, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves Frank Thomas as the Plaintiff-Appellant against the Law Firm of Simpson Cybak and others as Defendants-Appellees, with the appeal being heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal originates from a decision made by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, overseen by Judge David H. Coar. The court has vacated the panel's previous opinion and judgment dated January 13, 2004, indicating that a new opinion will be forthcoming. The representation for the parties includes Frank Thomas and Jessica E. Price for the appellant, and Peter A. Monahan along with other attorneys for the appellees. An amicus curiae brief was filed by Jessica E. Price. The case is identified by its citation, 358 F.3d 446, and the appeal number is 02-1113.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amicus Curiae Participation

Application: An amicus curiae brief was submitted in support of the appellant, which signifies the involvement of a third party in the case to provide additional information or perspectives.

Reasoning: An amicus curiae brief was filed by Jessica E. Price.

Representation of Parties in Appellate Proceedings

Application: Both parties in the appeal were represented by legal counsel, highlighting the importance of legal representation in appellate court proceedings.

Reasoning: The representation for the parties includes Frank Thomas and Jessica E. Price for the appellant, and Peter A. Monahan along with other attorneys for the appellees.

Vacating of Previous Court Opinion

Application: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the previous opinion and judgment, indicating that the earlier decision will not stand and a new opinion will be issued.

Reasoning: The court has vacated the panel's previous opinion and judgment dated January 13, 2004, indicating that a new opinion will be forthcoming.