TAYLOR v. MILLS
Plaintiff: ROBERT C. TAYLOR
Defendant: KAREN G. MILLS
Case Number: 1:2010cv01077
Filed: June 25, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: Richard W. Roberts
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
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
September 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 26 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION regarding 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 20 Request for Hearing, and 22 Motion to Strike Defendant's Reply Brief and Statement of Material Facts in Dispute. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 24, 2012. (lcbah1)
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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: TAYLOR v. MILLS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ROBERT C. TAYLOR
Represented By: Nicholas Harry Hantzes
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: KAREN G. MILLS
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?