Cases 21 - 30 of 161,008
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv04718
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv01180
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv01209
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv01212
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv04712
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 7422 Appeal from Administrative Decision
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00243
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Panabaker et al v. Hood River
as 3:2024cv00901
Plaintiff:
Ruston Panabaker, Sheri Panabaker, John J Hutson and others
Defendant:
City of Hood River
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Coleman et al v. County of Kings et al
as 1:2024at00449
Plaintiff:
Pearl Coleman, Mitchell Snell, Mamie Johnson and others
Defendant:
County of Kings, Kings County Sheriff David Robinson, Coroner and Public A Wayne Brabant and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
(PS) Whittman v. Chico Court
as 2:2024cv01575
Plaintiff:
Marvin Whittman
Defendant:
Chico Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01589
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
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.
