NetBank et al v. Williams et al
Case Number: 4:2006cv01295
Filed: August 28, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
Presiding Judge: Henry E. Autrey
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 140 CONSENT JUDGMENT (Partial) 139 : ORDERED AND ADJUGDED that the joint motion for consent judgment is Granted, and judgment against defts Felita Williams and Williams Financial in amount of $151,387.00 plus post judgment interest at rate of.93% from the date the judgment is entered through the date the judgment is fully satisfied, is hereby entered.. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 1/9/09. (CEL)
September 11, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 126 ORDER re 125 ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment, [Doc. No. 125], in the amount of $215,188.07 is granted against Garnishee, Christian Academy. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is ordered to send this Order to Garnishee through the United States Mail at: The Christian Academy, 11637 W. Florissant Avenue, Florissant, Missouri 63033. (cc: Christian Academy). Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 9/11/08. (CEL)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: NetBank et al v. Williams 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.

Why Is My Information Online?