White v. Workman
Petitioner: Rickey White
Respondent: Randall G. Workman
Case Number: 6:2009cv00085
Filed: March 4, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
Office: Mandamus & Other Office
County: Choctaw
Presiding Judge: Frank H. Seay
Presiding Judge: Kimberly E. West
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 17, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 7 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay: Entering Order denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus; all pending motions are denied as moot and this action is, in all respects, dismissed; (terminates case) 4 6 1 (trl, Chambers)
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 Oklahoma Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: White v. Workman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Rickey White
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: Randall G. Workman
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?