Stuart C Irby Company v. Hornecker

Stuart C Irby Company v. Hornecker

Plaintiff:	Stuart C Irby Company
Defendant:	Clarence Andrew Hornecker
Case Number:	4:2016cv00182
Filed:	April 6, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Office:	Little Rock Office
County:	Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Kristine G. Baker
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 30, 2019	Filing 50 ORDER considering this matter stayed pursuant to the automatic stay codified at 11 U.S.C. § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code; directing Mr. Hornecker to inform the Court in writing when his bankruptcy case concludes; and denying without prejudice the 40 , 42 , 44 three motions to compel filed by Stuart Irby Co. The Court will take no further action in this case unless and until a party files or the parties file a motion with the Court to do so. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/30/2019. (jbh)
August 31, 2017	Filing 30 JUDGMENT: Consistent with the 29 Opinion and Order entered on this date, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Stuart C. Irby Company and against defendant Clarence Andrew Hornecker. This cased i s dismissed with prejudice and the Court enters judgment in favor of Irby in the amount of $198,360.59, pre-judgment interest of $90,158.86 and post-judgment interest at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 until this judgment is paid. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/31/2017. (mef)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 30, 2019

Filing 50 ORDER considering this matter stayed pursuant to the automatic stay codified at 11 U.S.C. § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code; directing Mr. Hornecker to inform the Court in writing when his bankruptcy case concludes; and denying without prejudice the 40 , 42 , 44 three motions to compel filed by Stuart Irby Co. The Court will take no further action in this case unless and until a party files or the parties file a motion with the Court to do so. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/30/2019. (jbh)

August 31, 2017

Filing 30 JUDGMENT: Consistent with the 29 Opinion and Order entered on this date, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Stuart C. Irby Company and against defendant Clarence Andrew Hornecker. This cased i s dismissed with prejudice and the Court enters judgment in favor of Irby in the amount of $198,360.59, pre-judgment interest of $90,158.86 and post-judgment interest at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 until this judgment is paid. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/31/2017. (mef)

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: Stuart C Irby Company v. Hornecker
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stuart C Irby Company
Represented By:	Brian Craig Kimball
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Clarence Andrew Hornecker
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?