ROPER v. STARBUCK et al

Plaintiff: ROBERT ROPER
Defendant: JOHN E STARBUCK, III and COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Case Number: 4:2013cv00052
Filed: February 27, 2013
Court: Georgia Middle District Court
Office: Columbus Office
County: Muscogee
Presiding Judge: Clay D. Land
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Jury Demanded By: Both

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 Georgia Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ROPER v. STARBUCK et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ROBERT ROPER
Represented By: Jeffrey Phillips Leonard
Represented By: Erik S. Heninger
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JOHN E STARBUCK, III
Represented By: Jesse Groover Bowles, III
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Represented By: Walker Steven Stewart
Represented By: JAY CLIFFORD TRAYNHAM
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.