Charles Scurlock v. Penthouse International Entert
| CHARLES SCURLOCK |
| PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS IEC |
| 17-2061 |
| May 22, 2017 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Jobs |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Charles Scurlock v. Penthouse International Entert |
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
703123320
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFRIMED. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge; Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6888765-1] [6888765] [17-2061]
|
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: Charles Scurlock v. Penthouse International Entert | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant: CHARLES SCURLOCK | |
| Represented By: | Charles Scurlock |
| 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: PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS IEC | |
| Represented By: | Thomas E. Berry |
| 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.
