Fleming Ingram & Floyd, P.C. et al v. Clarendon National Insurance Company et al
| Fleming Ingram & Floyd, P.C., John Fleming and William M. Fleming |
| Clarendon National Insurance Company and Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company |
| 1:2008cv00075 |
| June 11, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| P.I.: Other Office |
| Richmond |
| W. Leon Barfield |
| J. Randal Hall |
| Defendant |
| Diversity |
| 28:1446 Notice of Removal-Property Damage (P.I.) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
211
ORDER denying 180 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or Alternatively, Motion for New Trial. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/13/2011. (csr)
|
|
Filing
143
ORDER re 136 Trial Brief - Motions in Limine. This order addresses all pending motion in limine issues properly raised in the joint brief. All Issues previously raised in the separately filed motion in limine but not included in the joint brief are dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defts motion in limine, docket #120. Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Leon Barfield on 4/21/10. (JRG)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER granting 64 Motion for Summary Judgment against Fleming, Ingram & Floyd, P.C., and John Fleming; granting 66 Motion for Summary Judgment against William M. Fleming. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 12/29/2009. (csr)
|
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 Georgia Southern 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
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.
