In re: Bryce LaNear
| In re: Bryce LaNear |
| 26-1290 |
| February 9, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| JUDGMENT FILED - The petition for writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner Bryce LaNear is denied as moot [ # 5609725-2 ]. Mandate shall issue forthwith. DENIED AS MOOT. JAMES B. LOKEN, BOBBY E. SHEPHERD and RALPH R. ERICKSON Adp Feb 2026 [5611950] [26-1290] (BNW) [Entered: 02/25/2026 02:21 PM] |
| MANDATE ISSUED. [5611959] [26-1290] (BNW) [Entered: 02/25/2026 02:33 PM] |
| CASE SUBMITTED Ad Panel Submission before Judges James B. Loken, Bobby E. Shepherd, Ralph R. Erickson in St. Louis [5611945] [26-1290] (BNW) [Entered: 02/25/2026 02:19 PM] |
| ORIGINAL PROCEEDING case docketed. [5609718] [26-1290] (CMH) [Entered: 02/19/2026 11:20 AM] |
| PETITION for Writ of Mandamus (Rec'd by MAIL) filed by Petitioner Bryce LaNear w/service 02/17/2026. [5609725] [26-1290] (CMH) [Entered: 02/19/2026 11:25 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: In re: Bryce LaNear | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: In re: Bryce LaNear | |
| Represented By: | Bryce LaNear |
| 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 | [ 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.
