Glass v. United States Postal Service
Plaintiff: Robert Glass
Defendant: United States Postal Service
Case Number: 4:2009cv00013
Filed: February 3, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Office: Taxes: Customer Challenge Office
County: Lauderdale
Presiding Judge: Daniel P. Jordan
Presiding Judge: James C. Sumner
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 5/11/10 (RRL)
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 Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Glass v. United States Postal Service
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Glass
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: United States Postal Service
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?