Carnell Construction Corporation v. Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority, et al
| 4:2010cv00007 |
| February 17, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| Danville Office |
| Jackson L. Kiser |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
848
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 6/8/15. (ham)
|
|
Filing
846
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 5/26/2015. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
844
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 5/22/2015. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
763
JUDGMENT in favor of Carnell Construction Corporation against Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority and Blaine Square, LLC in the total amount of $215,047.57. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/8/13. (ham)
|
|
Filing
601
ORDER denying 524 Motion for Non-bifurcated Trial filed by Carnell Construction Corporation; denying as moot 527 DRHA's Motion to Quash trial subpoena issued to Geary Davis; denying 531 IFIC's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; d enying 548 Carnell's Motion to Quash subpoenas issued to Lester and America Scales; granting 573 DRHA's Motion to Quash subpoena duces tecum issued to Robert J. Owens; denying 576 Carnell's Motion to Compel production of documents; sustaining 560 DRHA's Objection to Carnell's inclusion of W. Huntington Byrnes on Witness List. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/20/2012. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
394
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 336 Second Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority; granting in part and denying in part 337 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carnell Construction Corporation; granting in part and denying in part 341 Second Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Blaine Square, LLC. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/23/2012. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
263
ORDER denying 224 IFIC's Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); granting 233 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint; denying 239 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/27/2011. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
219
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 5/3/2011. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
218
ORDER finding as moot 179 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; finding as moot 183 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; granting in part and denying in part 208 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 5/2/2011. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER denying 69 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by International Fidelity Insurance Company; granting 76 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 1/27/2011. (mlh)
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority; granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Blaine Square, LLC. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 1/25/2011. (mlh)
|
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 Virginia Western 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
| Search for this case: Carnell Construction Corporation v. Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
