GIESLER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
| MICHAEL GEISLER |
| INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE |
| 2:2015cv00154 |
| February 6, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Joy Flowers Conti |
| Appeal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0158 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: notice of appeal. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 9/23/2015. (ten)
|
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 Pennsylvania Western 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: GIESLER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Appellant: MICHAEL GEISLER | |
| Represented By: | Michael S. Geisler |
| 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 ] |
| Appellee: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |
| Represented By: | Stephen S. Ho |
| 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.
