Jordan v. Max Foote Construction Company Inc

Plaintiff: Ray Jordan
Defendant: Max Foote Construction Company Inc
Case Number: 4:2010cv01458
Filed: October 7, 2010
Court: Arkansas Eastern District Court
Office: Little Rock Office
County: Pulaski
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332
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
June 24, 2011 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER re 22 Objection filed by Max Foote Construction Company Inc. The subpoena duces tecum is hereby quashed. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 6/24/11. (kpr)
March 21, 2011 18 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 14 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 3/21/11. (kpr)

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 this case: Jordan v. Max Foote Construction Company Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ray Jordan
Represented By: Jim Jackson
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: Max Foote Construction Company Inc
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?