Golden Glow v. City of Columbus, MS
| Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated |
| City of Columbus, Mississippi |
| 21-60898 |
| November 23, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Golden Glow v. City of Columbus, MS
|
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER granting unopposed motion to extend time to file appellant's brief, filed by Appellant Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated [ # 9759129-2 ]. A/Pet's Brief deadline updated to 02/09/2022, for Appellant Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated. [21-60898] Reason: COVID-19. (DLJ) [Entered: 01/20/2022 12:16 PM] |
| UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated to extend time to file brief as appellant until 02/09/2022 [9759129-2]. Date of service: 01/20/2022 via email - Attorney for Appellee: Kerby; Attorney for Appellant: Waide [21-60898] (Jim D. Waide III) [Entered: 01/20/2022 10:09 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [21-60898] (MRW) [Entered: 12/17/2021 11:01 AM] |
| BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 01/26/2022 for Appellant Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated. [21-60898] (MRW) [Entered: 12/17/2021 11:01 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Jim D. Waide, III, for Appellant Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated, in 21-60898. [21-60898] (DLJ) [Entered: 12/08/2021 03:37 PM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Katherine Searcy Kerby for Appellee City of Columbus, Mississippi in 21-60898 [21-60898] (MAS) [Entered: 12/08/2021 01:41 PM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM received from Mrs. Katherine Searcy Kerby, Esq. for City of Columbus, Mississippi for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-60898] (Katherine Searcy Kerby ) [Entered: 12/07/2021 05:09 PM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Jim D. Waide, III, Esq. for Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-60898] (Jim D. Waide III) [Entered: 12/07/2021 02:29 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9726500-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [21-60898] (CB) [Entered: 12/06/2021 08:41 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 1:20-CV-103. Electronic ROA due on 12/21/2021. [21-60898] (CB) [Entered: 12/06/2021 08:47 AM] |
| CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated [21-60898] (CB) [Entered: 11/23/2021 02:04 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Golden Glow v. City of Columbus, MS | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated | |
| Represented By: | Jim D. Waide Esq. III |
| 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 / appellee: City of Columbus, Mississippi | |
| Represented By: | Katherine Searcy Kerby Esq. |
| 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.
