Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Taggart

Plaintiff: Branch Banking and Trust Company
Defendant: Thomas R. Taggart
Case Number: 4:2013cv00078
Filed: April 2, 2013
Court: Georgia Southern District Court
Office: Savannah Office
County: Chatham
Referring Judge: G. R. Smith
Presiding Judge: William T. Moore
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instrument
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity of citizenship
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
April 14, 2015 13 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDERED that this case Administratively Closed without prejudice to the right of any party with standing to reopen it. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/2/2015. (loh)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Taggart
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Branch Banking and Trust Company
Represented By: Robert R. Ambler, 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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Thomas R. Taggart
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.