Miller v. USA et al
| Sharon K Miller |
| USA and Internal Revenue Service |
| 4:2010cv00796 |
| July 7, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Little Rock Office |
| Randolph |
| G. Thomas Eisele |
| Taxes (US Plaintiff or Defendant) |
| 26 U.S.C. ยง 7422 |
| Plaintiff |
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
99
JUDGMENT: The United States' Unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment 95 is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the United States of America and against Ron Turner in the amount of $540,761.48 plus interest accruing after April 30, 2013 pursuant to law until paid. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 4/29/2013. (dmn)
|
|
Filing
93
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT entered in favor of United States of America and the Internal Revenue Service as to claims against A. Ronald Turner. Judgment is entered in favor of Terry G. Whittington as to the claims made against him by United States of America and the Internal Revenue Service. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 3/29/2013. (dmn)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER granting 34 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Modify the Final Scheduling Order filed by USA. The ddl for response to the motion for summary judgment is 9/7/12 for non-moving parties. The reply ddl for the U.S. is 9/28/12. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 8/29/12. (kpr)
|
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 Arkansas Eastern 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
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.
