Rhew v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Plaintiff: David Rhew
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case Number: 2:2012cv00526
Filed: December 19, 2012
Court: Indiana Northern District Court
Office: Hammond Office
County: LaPorte
Referring Judge: Andrew P Rodovich
Presiding Judge: Philip P Simon
Nature of Suit: Federal Employer's Liability
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor Act
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 18, 2013 21 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 9/18/13. (mc)

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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rhew v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Rhew
Represented By: Richard A Haydu
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: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Represented By: John C Duffey
Represented By: Heather L Emenhiser
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.