SHELTON v. CHAMPLIN et al
Plaintiff: GLADYS SHELTON
Defendant: DAVID CHAMPLIN and COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC.
Case Number: 2:2008cv03757
Filed: August 8, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Motor Vehicle Office
County: Bucks
Presiding Judge: THOMAS N. ONEILL
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1441 Notice of Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SHELTON v. CHAMPLIN et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: GLADYS SHELTON
Represented By: I. MICHAEL LUBER
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: DAVID CHAMPLIN
Represented By: THEODORE M. SCHAER
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: COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC.
Represented By: THEODORE M. SCHAER
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?