Jones v. Holliday's General Service Corporation et al

Plaintiff: Faye Jones
Defendant: Holliday's General Service Corporation and Dudley Properties, LLC
Case Number: 2:2009cv02052
Filed: January 30, 2009
Court: Tennessee Western District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other Office
County: Shelby
Presiding Judge: Tu M. Pham
Referring Judge: Tu M. Pham
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

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 Tennessee Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jones v. Holliday's General Service Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Faye Jones
Represented By: Frank S. Cantrell
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: Holliday's General Service Corporation
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: Dudley Properties, LLC
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.