Harkless v. Alabama Department of Mental Health et al

Plaintiff: Sarah H. Harkless
Defendant: Tammy Peacock and Alabama Department of Mental Health
Case Number: 2:2012cv00238
Filed: March 15, 2012
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Referring Judge: Terry F. Moorer
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harkless v. Alabama Department of Mental Health et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tammy Peacock
Represented By: Thomas B Klinner
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: Alabama Department of Mental Health
Represented By: Thomas B Klinner
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: Sarah H. Harkless
Represented By: Ann Carroll Robertson
Represented By: Henry Wallace Blizzard, III
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?