CHAIB v. STATE OF INDIANA

Defendant: STATE OF INDIANA
Plaintiff: NORA CHAIB
Case Number: 1:2011cv00724
Filed: May 27, 2011
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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
March 1, 2013 86 Opinion or Order of the Court ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the State's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply (Dkt. 82 ) and the State's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 54 ) is GRANTED. *SEE ENTRY*. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/1/2013. (JD)

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

Search for this case: CHAIB v. STATE OF INDIANA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: STATE OF INDIANA
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 ]
Plaintiff: NORA CHAIB
Represented By: Richard L. Darst
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.