USA v. Rash
| 5:2005cv00244 |
| August 24, 2005 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Statesville Office |
| Richard Voorhees |
| Forfeit/Penalty: Agriculture |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 3001 Federal Debt Collection Act |
| None |
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
33
ORDER denying 24 Defendant's Motion for Hearing; denying 27 Defendant's Motion for USDA and US Department of Justice to turn over proof of what cattle and equipment brought during bankruptcy. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 9/18/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(smj)
|
|
Filing
12
DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff against Joseph W. Rash in the total amount of $56,204.29, which includes the principal amount of $40,830.20, plus $15,374.09 in accrued interest through 8/1/2011, and continuing to accrue until date of jgmt herein at the rate of 5.5% per annum. Signed by Frank G. Johns, Clerk, on 8/9/2011. (cbb)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER STAYING CASE pending resolution of bankruptcy proceedings. Clerk is directed to remove this action as a statistically pending matter. Plf advised that if relief is still sought from Court at conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings, a motion requesting that case be reopened should be submitted. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 4/7/2011. (cbb)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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: USA v. Rash | |
|---|---|
| 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.
