United States of America v. Fields et al
3:2006cv00697 |
December 11, 2006 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
Jackson Office |
Daniel P. Jordan |
James C. Sumner |
Taxes |
26 U.S.C. ยง 7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 82 JUDGMENT in favor of Regions Bank against Eric Fields, Reginald Funchess; that on April 21, 2008, the Court entered an order 54 granting Regions unopposed motion for summary judgment 44 as to its cross-claim against Defendants Eric J. Fields and Reginald Funchess. As such, the Court finds that judgment should be entered in favor of Regions as to its cross-claims against Defendants Eric J. Fields and Reginald Funchess. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 4/1/09 (SEC) |
Filing 75 ORDER denying 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 65 Motion for Summary Judgment as set out in the order. The United States is directed to submit a proposed judgment and a proposed order directing the sale within five (5) days of entry of this order. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on March 9, 2009. (SP) |
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 Mississippi Southern 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
Search for this case: United States of America v. Fields et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.