Davis v. INEOS ABS (USA) CORPORATION
Plaintiff: Stan Davis
Defendant: INEOS ABS (USA) CORPORATION
Case Number: 1:2009cv00773
Filed: October 23, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: HAMILTON
Presiding Judge: Timothy S Hogan
Presiding Judge: S Arthur Spiegel
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-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
March 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment 30 is granted and this action shall be stricken from the active docket of this court. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 3/24/11. (sct1)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Davis v. INEOS ABS (USA) CORPORATION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stan Davis
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: INEOS ABS (USA) CORPORATION
Represented By: Kerry Philip Hastings
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?