Tennessee Civil Rights Cases
Cases 171 - 180 of 7,817
Marable v Ascension St. Thomas et al
as 3:2024cv00284
Plaintiff:
Carl G. Marable
Defendant:
Ascension St. Thomas of Rutherford, Murfreesboro Police Department, Rutherford County Sheriff's Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Dabit v. City of Chattanooga
as 1:2024cv00108
Plaintiff:
Sana Dabit
Defendant:
City of Chattanooga
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jordan v. Metro Legal Department
as 3:2024cv00268
Plaintiff:
Marcia Jordan
Defendant:
Metro Legal Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00275
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Womack v. Memphis Housing Authority et al
as 2:2024cv02148
Plaintiff:
Mellissa Womack
Defendant:
Memphis Housing Authority, Rebellious Cole, Amber Bohanon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00265
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Rutherford County et al
as 3:2024cv00264
Plaintiff:
Leo Lamont Jones
Defendant:
Rutherford County and James Elliot
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
as 3:2024cv00254
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Pendleton v. Kennedy et al
as 3:2024cv00252
Plaintiff:
Eric C. Pendleton
Defendant:
Randy Kennedy, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Andra Hedrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #039 v. Lee et al
as 1:2024cv00102
Plaintiff:
John Doe #039
Defendant:
William Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of 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.
