Hines v. Smith
Petitioner: Fredrick Dewayne Hines
Respondent: Michelle Smith
Case Number: 0:2016cv02345
Filed: July 5, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Washington
Presiding Judge: David S. Doty
Presiding Judge: Steven E. Rau
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 37 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 39 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 12 Motion to Dismiss (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/30/2017. (DLO)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hines v. Smith
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Fredrick Dewayne Hines
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 ]
Respondent: Michelle Smith
Represented By: James B Early
Represented By: Matthew Frank
Represented By: Cheri Townsend
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?