Baylis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Defendant: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Plaintiff: Maggie Baylis
Case Number: 1:2013cv00114
Filed: June 19, 2013
Court: Mississippi Northern District Court
Office: Aberdeen Division Office
County: Tippah
Presiding Judge: Glen H. Davidson
Referring Judge: David A. Sanders
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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
January 5, 2015 80 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 54 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 1/5/15. (rel)
January 5, 2015 81 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION re 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 1/5/15. (rel)

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 Mississippi Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Baylis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
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: Maggie Baylis
Represented By: Jim D. Waide, 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.