Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Durable Manufacturing Co. v. United States Department of Labor

Northern District of IllinoisSt. EveDecided November 4, 2008

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of Labor Read by a model
This case presents a challenge to administrative regulations recently adopted by the United States Department of Labor ("DOL").
Form or filing I-140 (immigrant worker petition) Read by a model
Next, the prospective employer must file the approved labor certification along with a visa petition (specifically, Form 1-140) with the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In Count II, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and mandamus relief against the DHS requiring that agency to process their visa petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.