Cases 1 - 10 of 12
GRIDER v. COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY
as 1:2022cv01520
Plaintiff:
KARI GRIDER
Defendant:
COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY and REESE BOWEN
Interested Party:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
KENDALL v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 1:2013mc00135
Respondent:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Petitioner:
DONNA FAYE KENDALL
SELANDER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 1:2013mc00134
Respondent:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Petitioner:
DONALD STEPHEN SELANDER
INDIANA et al v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al
as 1:2013cv01612
Plaintiff:
BENTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION OF EASTERN HANCOCK COUNTY, STATE OF INDIANA and others
Defendant:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACOB LEW, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
FISHER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al
as 1:2013mc00075
Petitioner:
CYBIL FISHER
Respondent:
JEFFREY HENCKE and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
LYNN et al v. PALESTINO et al
as 1:2012mc00096
IRS:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Petitioner:
JAY LYNN and SANDY LYNN
Interested Party:
MESIROW FINANCIAL, MORGAN STANLEY, OLD NATIONAL BANK and others
Respondent:
JOE PALESTINO
SELLMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2012mc00031
Respondent:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
MILTON L. SELLMAN
JORDAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al
as 1:2011mc00008
Petitioner:
JAMES D. JORDAN
Respondent:
LARA MCINTOSH and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
PUGH v. DEPT OF TREASURY et al.
as 1:2010mc00159
Respondent:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Petitioner:
BRADLEY WARREN, PUGH
PARKER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 1:2009mc00152
Petitioner:
WILLIAM CRAIG PARKER
Respondent:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
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.
