Royal Overhead Door Inc v. Maxum Indemnity Company
Plaintiff:
Royal Overhead Door Inc
Defendant:
Maxum Indemnity Company
Case Number:
4:2009cv00714
Filed:
September 1, 2009
Court:
Arkansas Eastern District Court
Office:
Little Rock Office
County:
Pulaski
Presiding Judge:
Brian S. Miller
Nature of Suit:
Plaintiff
Cause of Action:
28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Jury Demanded By:
Plaintiff
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed | # | Document Text |
---|---|---|
December 14, 2009 | 7 |
![]() |
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 Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Royal Overhead Door Inc v. Maxum Indemnity Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Royal Overhead Door Inc | |
Represented By: | Scott Michael Strauss |
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: Maxum Indemnity Company | |
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.