United States v. Wallace, et al
| 4:2000cv00221 |
| December 21, 2000 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations Office |
| Linda R. Anderson |
| Tom S. Lee |
| Plaintiff |
| U.S. Government Plaintiff |
| 42:405 Fair Housing Act |
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
302
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 271 Motion to Reopen Case; granting in part and denying in part 296 Supplemental Motion to Reopen ; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 299 Report and Recommendations.; denying 300 Motion to Review of Magistrate Judge Order Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 9/15/09 (MGB)
|
|
Filing
299
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: recommending that the Supplemental Motion 271 to Reopen Case and Extend Term of Consent Order filed by United States of America be granted. Objections to R&R due by 6/17/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 6/3/2009. (ACF)
|
|
Filing
291
ORDER denying 286 Defendants' Motion to Cross Examine Counsel Opposite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 1/7/08. (ACF)
|
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 v. Wallace, 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.
