Curtis Neeley, Jr. v. NameMedia, et al
| Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA |
| NameMedia, Inc., Network Solutions, Inc. and Google, Inc. |
| 10-2255 |
| June 7, 2010 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Trademark |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Curtis Neeley, Jr. v. NameMedia, et al |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2010. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 33 MANDATE ISSUED. [3700435] [10-2255] (PAW) |
| Filing 32 CLERK LETTER sent regarding motion to withdraw petition for rehearing. [3698311] [10-2255] (PAW) |
| Filing 31 LETTER from Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. regarding Dismiss since Supreme Court has jurisdiction. w/service 08/27/2010 [3698129] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 30 MOTION to withdraw petition for rehearing., filed by Party Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr.. w/service 08/23/2010. [3696246] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 29 MEMORANDUM of Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. in support of petition for enbanc rehearing, filed by Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. in 10-2255 , Doc No. [3693208-2]. w/service 08/13/2010. [3693606] [10-2255] (PAW) |
| PETITION for enbanc rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. w/service 08/13/2010 [3693299] [10-2255] FILED INCORRECTLY AND REFILED AS MEMO IN SUPPORT--[Edited 08/16/2010 by MER] (CJN) |
| Filing 27 PETITION for enbanc rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. w/service 08/12/2010 [3693208] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 26 JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the Originating Court is AFFIRMED in part in accordance with the opinion.; Granting in part [3683914-2] motion to dismiss case filed by Attorney Mr. Brooks C. White for Appellee NameMedia.; denying in part [3683914-2] motion to dismiss case filed by Attorney Mr. Brooks C. White for Appellee NameMedia. DAVID R. HANSEN, STEVEN M. COLLOTON and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER Adp June 2010 [3692908] [10-2255] (PAW) |
Filing 25
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DAVID R. HANSEN, STEVEN M. COLLOTON and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER (UNPUBLISHED) [3692902] [10-2255] (PAW)
|
| Filing 24 CLERK ORDER:Granting in Part [3689972-3] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. John Mark Scott for Appellee Network Solutions and Mr. Brooks C. White for Appellee NameMedia [3690206] Brief of Google, NameMedia and Network Solutions due 09/07/2010. [3690206] [10-2255] (LAB) |
| RESPONSE in opposition to motion for extension of time to file brief, [3689972-3], motion for stay, [3689972-2] filed by Party Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. , w/service 08/04/2010. [3690065] [10-2255]DUPLICATE DOCUMENT SEALED.--[Edited 08/04/2010 by YML] (CJN) |
| Filing 22 RESPONSE in opposition to motion for miscellaneous relief, [3689972-2] filed by Party Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. for Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. , w/service 08/03/2010. [3690009] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 21 JOINT MOTION (NameMedia,Network Solutions & Google) for stay or in the alternative for extension of time to file brief until 09/13/2010, filed by Mr. John Mark Scott for Appellee Network Solutions and Mr. Brooks C. White for Appellee NameMedia. w/service 08/03/2010. [3689972] [10-2255] (JMS) |
| Filing 20 CLERK ORDER:motion to supplement record filed by Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. in 10-2255 , [3685541-2] is hereby ordered taken with the case for consideration by the panel to which this case is submitted for disposition on the merits. - FOR CAL. [3689711] [10-2255] (LAB) |
| CASE SUBMITTED Ad Panel Submission before Judges Steven M. Colloton, David R. Hansen, Raymond W. Gruender in St. Louis [10-2255] (MER) |
| Filing 18 BRIEF FILED - CORRECTED BRIEF correcting Doc. No., [3681320-2], brief Appellant/Petitioner Brief. w/service 07/21/2010 89 PDF pages, w/Addendum 5 copies. 88 pages [3686891] [10-2255] (MDS) |
| LETTER from Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. regarding exhibit originals. w/service 07/21/2010 [3685869] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 16 MOTION to supplement the record., filed by Party Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. for Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr.. w/service 07/20/2010. [3685541] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 15 CLERK ORDER: Appellees' motion to dismiss will be held in abeyance pending the filing of appellant's revised brief. [3684384] [3684384] [10-2255] (LAB) |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE in opposition to motion to dismiss case, [3683914-2] filed by Party Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. for Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. , w/service 07/15/2010. [3684217] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 13 MOTION to dismiss case, filed by Attorney Mr. Brooks C. White for Appellee NameMedia. w/service 07/15/2010. [3683914] [10-2255] (BCW) |
| Filing 12 CLERK ORDER:Granting [3683209-2] motion to file an amended brief filed by Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. Appellant's amended brief is due 07/23/2010. Appellee brief of Google, NameMedia and Network Solutions due 08/23/2010. [3683333] [10-2255] (LAB) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to file an amended brief., filed by Party Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr. for Appellant Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr.. w/service 07/13/2010. [3683209] [10-2255] (CJN) |
| Filing 10 APPEARANCE FILED by Attorney Mr. Brooks C. White for Appellee NameMedia w/service 07/07/2010 [3681090] [10-2255] (BCW) |
| Filing 9 BRIEF FILED - APPELLANT BRIEF filed by Mr. Curtis James Neeley, Jr., w/service 07/02/2010, 88 PDF pages, w/Addendum, 5 copies. Words/lines/pages 9,657 words. Brief of Google, NameMedia and Network Solutions due on 08/02/2010 [3681320] [10-2255](CORRECTED BRIEF FILED ON 7/23/2010 REPLACING THIS BRIEF)--[Edited 07/26/2010 by CMW] (LAB) |
| Filing 8 APPEARANCE FILED by Attorney Mr. Robert L. Jones, III for Appellee Network Solutions w/service 06/23/2010 [3677307] [10-2255] (RLJ) |
| Filing 7 BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: If the original file of the U.S. District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by 8th Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with 8th Circuit Local Rule 30A (a)(2), the clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files. Original file of originating court shall serve as record on appeal. Appendices required by 8th Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. Clerk of originating court is requested to forward the file forthwith, together with any exhibits and documents maintained in paper format.. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Curtis James Neeley Jr. due 08/02/2010. Appellee brief is due 30 days following service of appellant's brief. Appellant reply brief is due 14 days following service of appellee brief. [3677259] [10-2255] (EDG) |
| Filing 6 APPEARANCE FILED by Attorney Mr. John Mark Scott for Appellee Network Solutions w/service 06/23/2010 [3677192] [10-2255] (JMS) |
| Filing 5 APPEARANCE FILED by Attorney Mr. Joshua R Thane for Appellee Google w/service 06/22/2010 [3676972] [10-2255] (JHD) |
| Filing 4 APPEARANCE FILED by Attorney Ms. Jennifer H. Doan for Appellee Google w/service 06/22/2010 [3676970] [10-2255] (JHD) |
| Filing 3 Originating court document filed consisting of originating court order of 05/20/2010, docket entries link. [3673091] [10-2255] (EDG) |
| Filing 2 Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Supporting Brief w/ Exhibits, amended notice of appeal w/ amended Support Brief, Order dated 3/1/10, and Order dated 5/20/10, docket entries link. [3671802] [10-2255] (EDG) |
| Filing 1 Civil case docketed. [3671791] [10-2255] (EDG) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
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.
