Chisholm v. St. Lawrence
Petitioner: Edward Chisholm
Respondent: Al St. Lawrence
Case Number: 4:2012cv00140
Filed: May 18, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office: Savannah Office
County: Chatham
Presiding Judge: B. Avant Edenfield
Presiding Judge: G. R. Smith
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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
June 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 6/28/2012. (loh)
June 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER directing all parties to be served re 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/13/2012. (loh)
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: Chisholm v. St. Lawrence
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Edward Chisholm
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 ]
Respondent: Al St. Lawrence
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?