First Bancorp, Inc. v. United States of America et al
| First Bancorp, Inc. |
| Internal Revenue Service and United States of America |
| 1:2011cv00076 |
| May 18, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Bowling Green Office |
| Russell |
| Thomas B. Russell |
| Taxes (US Plaintiff or Defendant) |
| 26 U.S.C. ยง 7426 |
| 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
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/10/2013 re competing Motions for Summary Judgment (DNs 11 and 12 ). For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the parties' respective Motions for Su mmary Judgment. Summary judgment will be granted in the United States' favor relative to the levies of the first four Cooper Payments, which occurred on 10/8/2010, 11/19/2010, 12/13/2010, and 1/12/2011, each in the amount of $22,222.22. Su mmary judgment will be granted in First National's favor on its wrongful levy claim relative to the final five levies of the Cooper Payments, which occurred on 2/14/2011 ($22,222.22), 3/14/2011 ($22,222.22), 4/11/2011 ($22,222. 22), 5/11/2011 ($22,222.22), and 6/10/2011 ($14,173.10), and First National shall be entitled to judgment in its favor in the total amount of $103,061.98. A separate order of final judgment will issue separately with this Opinion. cc: Counsel (CDF)
|
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 Kentucky Western 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.
