Cases 21 - 30 of 1,879
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2024cv00517
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117 ad - Americans with Disabilities Act
Stallworth et al v. Barton et al
as 2:2024cv00243
Plaintiff:
Jermari Marshall and Twyla Stallworth
Defendant:
John G. Barton and City of Andalusia, Alabama
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Montgomery v. Daniels et al
as 1:2024cv00116
Plaintiff:
Luther Steven Montgomery, Jr.
Defendant:
Officer Cody P. Daniels, Sgt. John Hicks and City Of Mobile
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Binion v. City of Clanton et al (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00213
Plaintiff:
Robert R. Binion
Defendant:
City of Clanton, City Council Clanton and Jeff Mims
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jackson v. City of Jackson, Alabama
as 1:2024cv00106
Plaintiff:
Mary Jackson
Defendant:
City of Jackson, Alabama
Mitchell et al v. Selma City Board of Education et al
as 2:2024cv00108
Plaintiff:
Trumaine Mitchell, Sr. and Latonya Mines
Defendant:
Selma City Board of Education and Stoney Pritchett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ortiz v. Angel et al
as 2:2024cv00403
Plaintiff:
Reynaldo Ortiz
Defendant:
Edgar A Angel, Andrew T Posten and Alabaster, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
RoettO'Connor v. Pelham, City of et al
as 2:2024cv00401
Plaintiff:
Gregjoy RoettO'Connor
Defendant:
Pelham, City of, Clifton Powell, William Scott and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00382
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rusk et al v. City of Birmingham, Alabama
as 2:2024cv00299
Plaintiff:
Daniel Rusk and Mary Frances Rusk
Defendant:
City of Birmingham, Alabama
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.
