Eversole v. IRS
Plaintiff: Frank Eversole
Defendant: IRS
Case Number: 4:2014cv00101
Filed: March 12, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office: Pocatello - Eastern Office
County: Bonneville - Eastern
Presiding Judge: Ronald E. Bush
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 26 U.S.C. ยง 6330
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 25, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 19 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default 9 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Eversole v. IRS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Frank Eversole
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: IRS
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.


Why Is My Information Online?