Kemmerlin v. Wal Mart Stores Inc

Defendant: Wal Mart Stores Inc
Plaintiff: Robin Kemmerlin
Case Number: 5:2013cv01092
Filed: April 23, 2013
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Orangeburg Office
County: Orangeburg
Presiding Judge: J Michelle Childs
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Notice of Removal-Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 10, 2013 17 Opinion or Order of the Court CONSENT CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER, granting 16 Motion for Confidentiality Order. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/10/2013.(asni, )

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: Kemmerlin v. Wal Mart Stores Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Wal Mart Stores Inc
Represented By: Regina Hollins Lewis
Represented By: Mary Daniel LaFave
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: Robin Kemmerlin
Represented By: Daniel W Luginbill
Represented By: Clyde C Dean, 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 ]

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.