UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY et al

Plaintiff: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant: INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY and TEMPLE-INLAND INC.
Case Number: 1:2012cv00227
Filed: February 10, 2012
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 11001
Presiding Judge: Rosemary M. Collyer
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:25
Jury Demanded By: None

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Represented By: David Charles Kelly
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 ]
Defendant: INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
Represented By: James W. Lowe
Represented By: Eric J. Mahr
Represented By: Hartmut Schneider
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 ]
Defendant: TEMPLE-INLAND INC.
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.