Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Henderson v. Clemens
as 3:2023cv30007
Plaintiff:
Edmund Henderson
Defendant:
Bethany Clemens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv11966
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv10082
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ryan et al v. Krause et al
as 1:2011cv00037
Plaintiff:
Mary Ryan and Thomas Ryan
Defendant:
Robert D. Krause, Frank Williams, William Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00207
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Eisenberg v. Wall, et al
as 09-2127
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID W. EISENBERG
Defendant - Appellee:
EDMUND F. WALL, EUGENE TERRY MCSWEENEY, EDWARD J. WEINER and others
Defendant:
PAUL J. COTE, JR., as Commissioner of Public Health of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Bloomer et al v. Becker College
as 1:2009cv11342
Plaintiff:
Beth Bloomer and Edmund Paro
Defendant:
Becker College
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex Discrimination
Bloomer v. Becker College et al
as 4:2009cv11342
Plaintiff:
Beth Bloomer
Defendant:
Becker College and Edmund Paro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex Discrimination
Eisenberg v. Town of Burlington, et al
as 09-1966
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID W. EISENBERG
Defendant - Appellee:
TOWN OF BURLINGTON, TOWN OF BURLINGTON BOARD OF HEALTH, EDMUND F. WALL and others
Defendant:
ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
Eisenberg v. Wall, et al
as 09-1714
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID W. EISENBERG
Defendant - Appellee:
EDMUND F. WALL, EUGENE TERRY MCSWEENEY, EDWARD J. WEINER and others
Defendant:
PAUL J. COTE, JR., as Commissioner of Public Health of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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.
