Legal Opinion
United States v. STULER
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 21, 2019No. 2:08-cv-00273Unknown
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 08-273 ) LARRY L. STULER, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant Larry L. Stuler’s pro se “F.R.Cv.P. Rule 60(b)(4) Motion to Vacate Orders of Court Due to Court’s Failure to Notify Defendant of Order to Substitute Attorney for Plaintiff Causing Defendant to Be Prejudiced Because of Denial of Due Process” (Doc. No. 123), and brief in support thereof, filed in the above-captioned matter on August 24,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. One Toshiba Color Television Two Answering MacHines One Health Tech Computer Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3578 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00138) United States of America v. Assorted Jewelry Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3579 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00370)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Raymark Industries, Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. George Q. LaiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Brown v. American Home Products Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006