Alabama Civil Rights Cases
Cases 101 - 110 of 5,290
Broadhead v. VIA Health Center
as 1:2024cv00010
Plaintiff:
Julia Broadhead
Defendant:
VIA Health Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 rt Job Discrimination/Retaliation
Moman v. Kelso et al
as 2:2024cv00029
Plaintiff:
Kayla Moman
Defendant:
Daniel Ray Kelso, Mark Moon and Elaina Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Moore v. City of Boaz et al
as 4:2024cv00020
Plaintiff:
Ellar J Moore
Defendant:
City of Boaz and Hunter Doss
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Chapman v. Skipper
as 5:2024cv00023
Plaintiff:
Greg Chapman
Defendant:
Caleb Skipper
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
The Estate of Gary Brannon v. City of Wetumpka et al
as 2:2024cv00005
Plaintiff:
The Estate of Gary Brannon
Defendant:
City of Wetumpka, Bill Franklin and Michael V. Templin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Crafton v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2024cv00008
Plaintiff:
Rebecca Crafton
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, John Q. Hamm, Wendy Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Gibson v. Brown et al
as 7:2024cv00005
Plaintiff:
Debra Yuniece Gibson
Defendant:
Lynn Brown and Dollar General
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Harris v. Stringer
as 1:2024cv00002
Plaintiff:
Danita L. Harris
Defendant:
Richard Stringer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Phillips et al
as 2:2023cv01773
Plaintiff:
Jemayel Scott
Defendant:
Trina Phillips, Richard Holtzman, Courtland Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Meadows et al v. Leeds, City of et al
as 2:2023cv01774
Plaintiff:
Frank Meadows and Quinton Leroy Cook, Jr
Defendant:
Leeds, City of, Thomas William McDonald, McWhorter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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.
