Dominguez v. Gene's Country Store Inc et al

Defendant: Steven V Ward and Gene's Country Store Inc
Plaintiff: Carlos D Dominguez
Case Number: 2:2013cv01153
Filed: April 29, 2013
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Charleston Office
County: Georgetown
Presiding Judge: David C Norton
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Both

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: Dominguez v. Gene's Country Store Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Steven V Ward
Represented By: Lee Cannon Weatherly
Represented By: Kristen Michelle Kelley
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: Gene's Country Store Inc
Represented By: Lee Cannon Weatherly
Represented By: Kristen Michelle Kelley
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 ]
Plaintiff: Carlos D Dominguez
Represented By: Mark Charles Tanenbaum
Represented By: Mia Lauren Maness
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.