WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY v. HAUGHEY et al

Case Number: 2:2005cv00612
Filed: February 8, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Philadelphia Office
Presiding Judge: HARVEY BARTLE
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 30, 2011 Filing 306 MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AND TO APPROVE AOUNT OF BOND (DOC. NO.297)IS DENIED; DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS (DOC. NO.298)IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 6/30/2011. 6/30/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(kk, ) (kk, )
May 12, 2010 Filing 287 AMENDED JUDGEMENT THAT THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY D/B/A THE GRAHAM COMPANY TO AMEND THE JUNE 28, 2006 JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE PREJUDGMENT AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST IS GRANTED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 5/12/10. 5/13/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(dp, )
March 19, 2010 Filing 279 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS, THOMAS P. HAUGHEY AND USI MIDATLANTIC, INC., FOR A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 3/19/10. 3/19/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(dp, )
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY v. HAUGHEY 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?