Pennington v. State of Maryland, The

Defendant: State of Maryland, The
Petitioner: Justin Travis Pennington
Case Number: 1:2011cv03243
Filed: November 14, 2011
Court: Maryland District Court
Office: Baltimore Office
County: Cecil
Presiding Judge: Richard D Bennett
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
October 4, 2012 41 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 26 Motion of plaintiff to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion of plaintiff for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/4/12. (c/m 10/4/12 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

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 Maryland District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pennington v. State of Maryland, The
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: State of Maryland, The
Represented By: Michael O Connor Doyle
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 ]
Petitioner: Justin Travis Pennington
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.