Price v. City of Corning, CA
Plaintiff: Gary D. Price
Defendant: City of Corning, CA
Case Number: 1:2012cv00104
Filed: January 19, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford Office
Presiding Judge: Mark D. Clarke
Nature of Suit: Personal Property: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Property Damage
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
April 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation 5 .This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 1 is denied as moot. Signed on 4/5/2012 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)
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: Price v. City of Corning, CA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gary D. Price
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: City of Corning, CA
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?