Eady v. Osborne
Petitioner: Ernest B Eady
Respondent: David Osborne
Case Number: 3:2011cv00191
Filed: April 27, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Knoxville Office
County: Morgan
Presiding Judge: C Clifford Shirley
Presiding Judge: Thomas A Varlan
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting Petitioner's IFP application. The respondent shall not be required to file an answer and this petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the petition and this Memorandum andOrder on the respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee.Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 4/29/11. (c/m)(ABF)
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: Eady v. Osborne
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Ernest B Eady
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: David Osborne
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?