In re: Daniel W. Allen, Sr.

Debtor - Appellee: In re: DANIEL W. ALLEN, SR.
Plaintiff - Appellant: ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK INC
Case Number: 13-3543
Filed: August 22, 2013
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date FiledDescription
September 26, 2014 Summary In re: Allen
September 29, 2014 Daniel W. Allen, Sr. v.

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
September 26, 2014 3011749165 Opinion or Order of the Court PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: FISHER, SCIRICA and COWEN, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 22. Judge: FISHER Authoring.
September 29, 2014 3011751048 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AMENDING OPINION (Clerk), the opinion entered 09/26/2014 is amended solely to delete the listing of Michael A. Katz as counsel in this case.
Search for this case: In re: Daniel W. Allen, Sr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Debtor - appellee: In re: DANIEL W. ALLEN, SR.
Represented By: Albert A. Ciardi
Represented By: Jennifer C. McEntee
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellant: ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK INC
Represented By: Michael A. Katz
Represented By: Edward L. Paul
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.