Clifton LLC v. Tadlock

Defendant: Dewey W Tadlock
Plaintiff: Clifton LLC
Case Number: 4:2011cv01234
Filed: May 23, 2011
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Florence Office
County: Darlington
Presiding Judge: Terry L Wooten
Nature of Suit: All Other Real Property
Cause of Action: 28:1332
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
March 16, 2012 49 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 31 Motion for SummaryJudgment is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. All other pending motions are hereby found to be MOOT. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 03/16/2012.(sste )

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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clifton LLC v. Tadlock
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dewey W Tadlock
Represented By: John L Schurlknight
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 ]
Plaintiff: Clifton LLC
Represented By: Bernard Mitchell Alter
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.