Douglas Asphalt Co. et al v. Qore, Inc. et al
| 2:2006cv00229 |
| October 10, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| Brunswick Office |
| Anthony A. Alaimo |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
319
ORDER denying 313 Motion for Hearing; denying 279 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; dismissing 295 Motion for Hearing; denying 299 Motion for Reconsideration ; dismissing 301 Motion to Intervene; dismissing 302 Motion to Intervene; dismissing 314 at 1. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/20/2010. (thb)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER denying 161 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 165 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the defamation claim. Plaintiffs' motion for consideration or reconsideration is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 110. Because the Court has recognized Plaintiffs' negligence claim, the Court will entertain additional dispositive motions from Defendants related to such claims, but said motions must be filed by March 13, 2009. Signed by Judge Anthony A. Alaimo on 2/13/2009. (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
| Search for this case: Douglas Asphalt Co. et al v. Qore, Inc. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
