Pittman v. Hansen
Plaintiff: Forrest Pittman, Jr
Defendant: Royal I. Hansen
Case Number: 2:2007cv00797
Filed: October 18, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Utah
Office: Central Office
County: Salt Lake
Presiding Judge: Tena Campbell
Presiding Judge: David Nuffer
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
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
August 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 19 Order and Memorandum Decision: It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. All active motions in this case are denied as moot. denied as moot 6 Motion for Default Judgment; denied as moot 10 Motion to Quash; denied as moot 15 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 08/11/2009. (kpf)
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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pittman v. Hansen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Forrest Pittman, Jr
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: Royal I. Hansen
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?