The Triple-I Corporation v. Hudson Associates Consulting, Inc. et al
2:2006cv02195 |
May 12, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Kansas |
Kansas City Office |
James P. O'Hara |
Kathryn H. Vratil |
Trademark |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 477 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 408 Motion for Relief; granting 409 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 410 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 411 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/17/2010. (cm) |
Filing 435 ORDER finding as moot 355 Motion to Strike Affidavit of Robert Spachman ; denying 391 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts 2, 4 and 5; denying 330 Motion for Summary Judgment on Count III. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 7/17/2009. (cm) |
Filing 383 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The motion to reconsider 291 of Dr. Morris is denied. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 5/1/09.(sj) |
Filing 226 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 206 the KMPro Affiliates and Kirschs motion to amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 2/5/08. (mt) |
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: The Triple-I Corporation v. Hudson Associates Consulting, Inc. et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.