Cases 11 - 20 of 24
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-1144
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Velasquez v. Smith
as 1:2022cv00448
Defendant:
Diego Velasquez and William E. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-1515
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00133
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Smith v. City of Boston et al
as 1:2021cv10039
Defendant:
Matthew Becker, Dana Lamb, Boston Police Department and others
Plaintiff:
Lincoln E. Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tavares v. IRS et al
as 1:2018cv12512
Defendant:
House Adminstration Community Counseling, Taunton Public Library, Barstable County Commissioners and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel D. Tavares
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Deptula v. City of Worcester et al
as 4:2017cv40055
Plaintiff:
Luke Deptula
Defendant:
City of Worcester , Jeffrey Carlson , James E Bates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. City of Worcester, et al
as 16-1957
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JEROME E. SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
WORCESTER, MA, GARY J. GEMME, Chief of Police, TERRENCE CAHILL, Detective and others
Defendant:
THOMAS BISHOP, Detective, CHRISTOPHER PANARELLO, Detective and GARY MORRIS, Detective
Interested Party:
SONIA MEDINA, ELIZABETH MEDINA, SHALIMAR GONZALEZ and others
Smith v. Gardner, City of et al
as 4:2014cv40175
Plaintiff:
Richard E. Smith
Defendant:
Gardner, City of , Neil C. Erickson , Jesse Gadarowski and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. City of Worcester et al
as 4:2013cv40064
Plaintiff:
Jerome E. Smith
Defendant:
City of Worcester, Gary J. Gemme, Terrence Cahill 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.
