Branch Banking and Trust Company v. The Tractor Company, Inc.
| Branch Banking and Trust Company |
| The Tractor Company, Inc., Joe D. Ison and William E. Connolly |
| 5:2014cv25740 |
| September 12, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Beckley Office |
| Raleigh |
| Irene C. Berger |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: granting Plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company's 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendants as to the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant The Tractor Company. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/7/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)
|
|
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company's 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendants be GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract against Defendants Joe D. Ison and William Connolly. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/7/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
|
|
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons and findings articulated herein, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company's 14 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim be GRANTED and that Defendants' Counterclaim be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/29/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
