Hawk v. Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The

Petitioner: Doyle Kordell Hawk
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Case Number: 5:2015cv00462
Filed: March 19, 2015
Court: Alabama Northern District Court
Office: Northeastern Office
County: Madison
Referring Judge: John E Ott
Presiding Judge: Virginia Emerson Hopkins
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
July 31, 2015 11 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the Magistrate Judge's 9 Report and Recommendation and OVERRULING Petitioner's 10 Objection. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/31/2015. (JLC)

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 Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hawk v. Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Doyle Kordell Hawk
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 ]
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Represented By: Tracy M Daniel
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?