Hooten v. Bailey
Hooten v. Bailey is a federal personal property / fraud lawsuit filed on 08/20/1990 in the District Court, N.D. Alabama. The case was terminated on 02/07/1991.
A lawsuit records allegations and procedural activity. Being named as a party does not establish liability, wrongdoing, or the merits of any claim.
- Court
- District Court, N.D. Alabama (N.D. Ala.)
Official Court Website → - Assigned judge
- James H Hancock · 2,316 cases in index
- Docket number
- 1:90-cv-01719
- Nature of suit
- 370 Other fraud
Fraud or misrepresentation claims not covered by a more specific category. - Jurisdiction
- Federal question
- Date filed
- 08/20/1990
- Date terminated
- 02/07/1991
1,665 Personal Property / Fraud cases in this court are indexed here.
About Personal Property / Fraud Lawsuits
These cases involve damage to or loss of personal property, or claims of fraud and misrepresentation — including truth-in-lending and other deception-based claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Hooten v. Bailey?
Hooten v. Bailey is a federal personal property / fraud lawsuit filed on 08/20/1990 in the District Court, N.D. Alabama. The case was terminated on 02/07/1991. These cases involve damage to or loss of personal property, or claims of fraud and misrepresentation — including truth-in-lending and other deception-based claims.
What type of case is this?
It is classified as “Personal Property / Fraud” under the federal nature-of-suit system. These cases involve damage to or loss of personal property, or claims of fraud and misrepresentation — including truth-in-lending and other deception-based claims.
What court is the case in?
The case is in the District Court, N.D. Alabama, docket number 1:90-cv-01719.
When was the case filed?
Hooten v. Bailey was filed on 08/20/1990. It was terminated on 02/07/1991.
Other Cases Involving These Parties
Related Personal Property / Fraud Cases
Source: public U.S. federal court record — docket 9266374 in the CourtListener/RECAP archive (verify this docket), court docket number 1:90-cv-01719 on PACER. Court, party, date and judge fields are reproduced from that record; case-type categories, statute decoding and all aggregate figures are derived by Docket Nexus (methodology).