Vanderberg v. Rexam Beverage Can Company
Plaintiff: Steven A. Vanderberg
Defendant: Rexam Beverage Can Company
Case Number: 3:2015cv00214
Filed: December 21, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
Office: Oxford Division Office
County: De Soto
Presiding Judge: Neal B. Biggers
Presiding Judge: Jane M. Virden
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331
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
February 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 58 MEMORANDUM OPINION re 57 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers on 02/06/2017. (bds)
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: Vanderberg v. Rexam Beverage Can Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steven A. Vanderberg
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rexam Beverage Can Company
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?