Bethel Aram Ministries v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiff: Bethel Aram Ministries
Defendant: Internal Revenue Service
Case Number: 3:2008cv08043
Filed: April 16, 2008
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Taxes Office
County: Yavapai
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
April 15, 2009 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Pla's 15 Motion for Extension of Time to file response; granting Dft's 12 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 04/15/09. (ESL)

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

Search for this case: Bethel Aram Ministries v. Internal Revenue Service
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Internal Revenue Service
Represented By: Amy Talburt Matchison
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 ]
Plaintiff: Bethel Aram Ministries
Represented By: Steven D Keist
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?