Smith v. Sheedy Paving Inc
| Dan Smith |
| Sheedy Paving Inc |
| 2:2019cv03114 |
| July 18, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
| George C Smith |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against Sheedy Paving Inc ( Filing fee $ 400 paid - receipt number: 0648-7016652), filed by Dan Smith. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Friedmann, Peter) |
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 Ohio 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: Smith v. Sheedy Paving Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Sheedy Paving Inc | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Dan Smith | |
| Represented By: | Peter Friedmann |
| 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.
