McCaulsky-Walker v. United States Postal Service et al

Plaintiff: Vinette McCaulsky-Walker
Defendant: Gennaro & Sons Landscaping, LLC and United States Postal Service
Case Number: 3:2013cv00194
Filed: February 12, 2013
Court: Connecticut District Court
Office: New Haven Office
County: Hartford
Presiding Judge: Stefan R. Underhill
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Jury Demanded By: None

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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: McCaulsky-Walker v. United States Postal Service et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Vinette McCaulsky-Walker
Represented By: Robert Carl Elfont
Represented By: Thomas P. Cella
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: Gennaro & Sons Landscaping, LLC
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: United States Postal Service
Represented By: David Christopher Nelson
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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.