Mary Dunope v. ArcelorMittal S.A.
| MARY ANN DUNOPE |
| ARCELORMITTAL S.A. |
| 13-2272 |
| October 18, 2013 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Americans w/Disabilities Act-Empl |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Mary Dunope v. ArcelorMittal S.A. |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
404950006
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00058-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999344765]. Mailed to: Dunope. [13-2272]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Mary Dunope v. ArcelorMittal S.A. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant: MARY ANN DUNOPE | |
| Represented By: | Mary Ann Dunope |
| 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 - appellee: ARCELORMITTAL S.A. | |
| Represented By: | Raymond Charles Baldwin |
| Represented By: | Christine Mary Costantino |
| Represented By: | Bradley K. Shafer |
| 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.
