Rhea v. Apache Corporation
Plaintiff: Bigie Lee Rhea
Defendant: Apache Corporation
Case Number: 6:2014cv00433
Filed: September 29, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
Office: Muskogee Office
County: Cherokee
Presiding Judge: Frank H. Seay
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 3, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 287 ORDER by Judge Joe Heaton adopting 284 Report and Recommendation AND denying 285 Enable's Motion for Hearing. (tls, 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 Oklahoma Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rhea v. Apache Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bigie Lee Rhea
Represented By: Mariann M. Atkins
Represented By: Bradley E. Beckworth
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: Apache Corporation
Represented By: Mark Banner
Represented By: James C.T. Hardwick
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?