Maurice J. Salem v. United Central Bank
| TRADE WELL INTERNATIONAL, a Pakistan Corporation |
| UNITED CENTRAL BANK, a Texas Corporation |
| 14-1907 |
| April 24, 2014 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other Personal Property Damage |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
702470498
Filed opinion of the court by Judge Wood. We VACATE the orders before us holding Salem in contempt and imposing sanctions. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge and John Daniel Tinder, Circuit Judge. [6640432-1] [6640432] [14-1907]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Maurice J. Salem v. United Central Bank | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant: TRADE WELL INTERNATIONAL, a Pakistan Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Maurice J. Salem |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: UNITED CENTRAL BANK, a Texas Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Brian Patrick Thill |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
