US District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Rights Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 10,303
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00656
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
EDWARDS v. CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION et al
as 1:2024cv00666
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN S. EDWARDS
Defendant:
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, EMMET G. SULLIVAN, PHH MORTGAGE ET AL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
ROLLINS v. OTTMAN
as 1:2024cv00605
Plaintiff:
LAKEISHA ROLLINS
Defendant:
JULIE OTTMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ISOM v. NELSON
as 1:2024cv00648
Plaintiff:
TYESHA ISOM
Defendant:
JANE NELSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
SOOS v. MCDONOUGH et al
as 1:2024cv00196
Plaintiff:
EMERY SOOS
Defendant:
DENIS R. MCDONOUGH and WALT C. DANNENBERG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HURT v. VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608-1775 et al
as 1:2024cv00649
Plaintiff:
TYRONE HURT
Defendant:
VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608-1775, NATIONAL MUSUEM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
HURT v. VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608- 1775 et al
as 1:2024cv00651
Plaintiff:
TYRONE HURT
Defendant:
VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608- 1775, AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY and FORMER LORTON COMPLEX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
BOLLINS v. MONTGOMERY
as 1:2024cv00606
Plaintiff:
LAKEISHA BOLLINS
Defendant:
STEPHEN MONTGOMERY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00610
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00584
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12188 Americans With Disabilities Act
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.
