United States of America
Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendant: Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollard ($13,500.00) in US Currency
Case Number: 2:2007cv02703
Filed: November 2, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Office: Memphis Office
County: Shelby
Presiding Judge: J. Daniel Breen
Presiding Judge: Tu M. Pham
Nature of Suit: Forfeit/Penalty: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345 Complaint for Forfeiture
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
December 10, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 12/10/08. (Anderson, S.)
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 Tennessee Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States of America
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: United States of America
Represented By: Christopher E. Cotten
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: Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollard ($13,500.00) in US Currency
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?