Howard et al v. Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia Commission et al

Case Number: 1:2014cv00097
Filed: April 18, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office: Augusta Office
County: Richmond
Presiding Judge: Brian K. Epps
Presiding Judge: J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit: Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 23, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER that, subsequent to the denial without prejudice of Plaintiffs' request to depart from the full supersedeas bond requirement, the Plaintiffs' 38 Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Order and Judgment is granted conditioned upon Plain tiffs first posting a supersedeas bond, pursuant to Rule 62(d) and in accordance with Local Rule 67.1, in the amount of $15,975.00. Should Plaintiff wish to submit evidence as to why the Court should waive the supersedeas bond requirement, they are hereby ordered to do so within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/23/2014. (jah)
November 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER that, accordingly, the Defendants' 26 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs for $15,975.00 in attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/10/2014. (jah)

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 Georgia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Howard et al v. Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia Commission et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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?