CHILTON v. STATE OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Defendant: STATE OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and WENDY KNIGHT
Plaintiff: THEODORE CHILTON
Case Number: 1:2013cv00744
Filed: May 7, 2013
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: William T. Lawrence
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CHILTON v. STATE OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
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, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Represented By: T. Allon Renfro, Jr.
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: WENDY KNIGHT
Represented By: T. Allon Renfro, Jr.
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: THEODORE CHILTON
Represented By: Ryan Patrick Sink
Represented By: John H. Haskin
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.