Bill Hall Company v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc

Plaintiff: Bill Hall Company
Defendant: Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc
Case Number: 2:2009cv02187
Filed: August 17, 2009
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Charleston Office
County: Charleston
Presiding Judge: Margaret B Seymour
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Notice of Removal
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
November 29, 2010 51 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AND OPINION granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 37 Motion in Limine Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/29/2010.(asni, )

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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bill Hall Company v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bill Hall Company
Represented By: Joseph D Thompson, III
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc
Represented By: Amanda Coney Williams
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 [ 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.