Arthur v. Murphy Company
Plaintiff: Ernest Arthur
Defendant: Murphy Company
Case Number: 1:2010cv03142
Filed: December 14, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford Office
Presiding Judge: Mark D. Clarke
Nature of Suit: Labor: Other
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 0216 Fair Labor Standards Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 81 Order Awarding Attorney Fees and Costs. The plaintiff is hereby awarded $47,751.75 in reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the sanction set out in this Court's previous Order 42 . Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Ordered and Signed on 07/23/2012 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Arthur v. Murphy Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ernest Arthur
Represented By: James Dana Pinney
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 ]
Defendant: Murphy Company
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?