US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Civil Rights Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 2,676
Rosemond v. Casey et al
as 3:2024cv00607
Plaintiff:
Brenda A. Rosemond
Defendant:
HUD and James Casey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death
Baker-Whitlow v. Meharry Medical College
as 3:2024cv00609
Plaintiff:
Chantel Baker-Whitlow
Defendant:
Meharry Medical College
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Doe #1 MLC et al v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00585
Plaintiff:
John Doe #1 (MKC), John Doe #2 (JAS) and John Doe # 1 (MCL)
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #066 v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00586
Plaintiff:
John Doe #066
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Helton v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00588
Plaintiff:
Ricky M. Helton
Defendant:
Governor Bill Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kelly v. Advance Financial et al
as 3:2024cv00579
Plaintiff:
Henderson Kelly, Jr. and Basketball McDonalds ALL American and Ex-Felony
Defendant:
Advance Financial and Wendy's of Bowling Green
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
King et al v. Quad-R, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00047
Plaintiff:
Dillon King and Allison King
Defendant:
Quad-R, Inc. doing business as Rae Products Tennessee, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Doe #063 v. Lee et al
as 1:2024cv00046
Plaintiff:
John Doe #063
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #064 v. Lee et al
as 2:2024cv00030
Plaintiff:
John Doe #064
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #065 v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00557
Plaintiff:
John Doe #065
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
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.
