US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Civil Rights Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 6,561
Doe v. Lee et al
as 1:2024cv00018
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00245
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00238
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00232
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00230
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00231
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Russell et al v. The City of Franklin, Tennessee
as 3:2024cv00223
Plaintiff:
Brian Russell, Marvin Young and Jeremy Slayden
Defendant:
The City of Franklin, Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00219
Plaintiff:
John Doe and John Doe 219
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00216
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Nitschke et al v. Blue Hills Holdings, LLC et al
as 3:2024cv00218
Plaintiff:
Chelsie Nitschke and Cynthia George
Defendant:
Blue Hills Holdings, LLC, BNA Investments, GP, Bacar Constructors, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3601 Fair Housing 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.
