Young v. McLane Minnesota, Inc.
Plaintiff: Landon Young
Defendant: McLane Minnesota, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2009cv01653
Filed: June 29, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Rice
Presiding Judge: Noel
Presiding Judge: Tunheim
Nature of Suit: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans with Disabilities 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
March 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER denying defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Magistrate Judge's 29 Report and Recommendation. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 29, 2011. (DML)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Young v. McLane Minnesota, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: McLane Minnesota, Inc.
Represented By: Alec J Beck
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 ]
Plaintiff: Landon Young
Represented By: Stephen C Fiebiger
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.


Why Is My Information Online?