Douglas Osborne v. Lorillard Tobacco Company
| DOUGLAS E. OSBORNE |
| LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY |
| 14-2070 |
| October 8, 2014 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Jobs |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Douglas Osborne v. Lorillard Tobacco Company |
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
405381008
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to compel [999522980-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00750-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999546167]. Mailed to: Douglas Osborne. [14-2070]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Douglas Osborne v. Lorillard Tobacco Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant: DOUGLAS E. OSBORNE | |
| Represented By: | Douglas E. Osborne |
| 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 - appellee: LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY | |
| Represented By: | |
| 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.
