Solomon v. Dawson
Plaintiff: Cargyle Brown Solomon
Defendant: Herman C. Dawson
Case Number: 8:2013cv01951
Filed: July 3, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Maryland
Office: Greenbelt Office
County: Prince George's
Presiding Judge: Paul W. Grimm
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 8/30/2013. (c/m 9/3/2013 eb)(ebs2, Deputy Clerk)
July 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 5 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/18/2013. (c/m 7/18/2013 eb)(ebs2, Deputy Clerk)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Maryland District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Solomon v. Dawson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cargyle Brown Solomon
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: Herman C. Dawson
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.


Why Is My Information Online?