Sixth Circuit Civil Rights Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 35,008
Tamica Branscumb v. Horizon Bancorp, Inc.
as 24-1357
Plaintiff:
TAMICA BRANSCUMB, an individual
Defendant:
HORIZON BANK, identified on initiating document as Horizon Bancorp, Inc.
C.S. v. Craig McCrumb, et al
as 24-1364
Plaintiff:
C.S., by her next friend, Adam Stroub
Defendant:
CRAIG MCCRUMB, AMY LEFFEL and MICHAEL PAPANEK
John Cook v. David Boss, et al
as 24-3350
Plaintiff:
JOHN COOK
Defendant:
DAVID BOSS, KELLY VASAS, JONATHON ROMANIN and others
Dancz et al v. Lake, County of et al
as 1:2024cv00431
Plaintiff:
Linda Dancz, Suzanne Eggers, Carla Hartwick and others
Defendant:
Lake, County of, Kellie Allen and Brenda L. Kutchinski
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal-Other Civil Rights
Shank v. Smith
as 1:2024cv00745
Plaintiff:
Patrick J. Shank
Defendant:
Shelby W. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Delfino et al. v. Summit County, Ohio
as 5:2024cv00743
Plaintiff:
Daniel Delfino, Mindy E. Delfino and State of Ohio
Defendant:
Summit County, Ohio
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Shaw v. Dental Practice of Cordova et al
as 2:2024cv02268
Plaintiff:
Tekeva Shaw
Defendant:
Dental Practice of Cordova, Mid-South Oral Surgery, Christ Community Broad Dental and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Shaw v. Dermatology Realm et al
as 2:2024cv02271
Plaintiff:
Tekeva Shaw
Defendant:
Dermatology Realm, Clarx Big Country Dermatology, Memphis Dermatology and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Shaw v. Raymond's Auto Repair
as 2:2024cv02270
Plaintiff:
Tekeva Shaw
Defendant:
Raymond's Auto Repair
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Calkin v. Wexford, County of et al
as 1:2024cv00429
Plaintiff:
Kathleen Calkin
Defendant:
SGT. Kristie Piskor, SGT. Anthony Vermeulen, CO Janice Vanhaltsma and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
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.
