Williams et al v. Southern Refrigerated Transport Inc et al
| Cherie Williams, Candice Chadwick and Clayton Williams |
| Southern Refrigerated Transport Inc and Robert G Paquette |
| 2:2008cv00241 |
| December 23, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Motor Vehicle Office |
| Potter |
| Mary Lou Robinson |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 58 Motion to Intervene filed by Happy State Bank and 66 Motion to Intervene filed by Joshua R Woodburn, and denying 64 Motion to Amend/Correct "Emergency Order Vacating the Court's Motion for Dft to Pay David Duncan's Attorney Fees into the Registry of the Court" filed by Candice Chadwick and 67 Motion to Amend/Correct filed by David N Duncan. The Court orders that, after satisfactory execution of all settlement documents, the en tire contingency fee be paid into the registry of the court. Upon payment into the registry of court, the court will order appropriate disbursement to Joshua R. Woodburn. If the settlement of the underlying cause of action fails to proceed or if different amounts are agreed to, the parties may return to court for further disposition of these matters. See order for specifics. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 8/31/09) (djs)
|
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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
