Dochnal v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (PLR1)
Plaintiff: Marek A. Dochnal
Defendant: Thomson Reuters Corporation
Case Number: 2:2018cv00044
Filed: March 27, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Greeneville Office
County: Washington
Presiding Judge: Clifton L Corker
Presiding Judge: Pamela L Reeves
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681
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
October 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 10/17/18. (JBR)
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 Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dochnal v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (PLR1)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marek A. Dochnal
Represented By: Edward Buchanan
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 ]
Defendant: Thomson Reuters Corporation
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?