Cases 11 - 20 of 4,599
Williams v. Robinson et al
as 1:2024cv21998
Plaintiff:
Quantell W. Williams
Defendant:
Austin J. Robinson and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Williams v. Robinson et al
as 0:2024cv60899
Plaintiff:
Quantell W. Williams
Defendant:
Austin J. Robinson and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv01230
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
William Windsor v. Orinda Evans, et al
as 24-11670
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR
Defendant:
JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS, JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., JUDGE JULIE E. CARNES and others
Not Yet Classified:
SERVICE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv21876
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02139
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Williams v. Office of General Counsel et al
as 2:2024cv00286
Plaintiff:
Tommy Kendrick Williams
Defendant:
Office of General Counsel, Alabama DHR, Barbour DHR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Williams v. Reece et al (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00287
Plaintiff:
Tommy Kendrick Williams
Defendant:
Lt. Deputy Tracey Reece and Sheriff Tyrone Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Williams v. Google LLC (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00288
Plaintiff:
Tommy Kendrick Williams
Defendant:
Google LLC doing business as Youtube
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Doe v. Hardwick et al
as 3:2024cv00489
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Defendant:
Robert A. Hardwick, Matthew Cline, Joshua Woolsey 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.
