Cases 41 - 50 of 450
Evans, Jr. et al v. City of Atlanta et al
as 1:2023cv01743
Plaintiff:
Melvin B. Evans, Jr., Danyell Killion and Michael Perkins
Defendant:
City of Atlanta and Garrett Rolfe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Montgomery v. Looney
as 1:2023cv00131
Plaintiff:
Luther Steven Montgomery
Defendant:
Darlene Looney, Kevin Nelson, Daniel Lawrence and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2023cv00787
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2023cv00637
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
TERAMORE DEVELOPMENT LLC et al v. LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA et al
as 7:2023cv00039
Plaintiff:
TERAMORE DEVELOPMENT LLC and Mary Harris
Defendant:
LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA, LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Bill Slaughter and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Evans v. City of Melbourne et al
as 6:2023cv00043
Plaintiff:
Jamar Antonio Evans
Defendant:
City of Melbourne and Daniel Moffatt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Costello v. Clayton County et al
as 1:2022cv04942
Plaintiff:
Alvin Costello
Defendant:
Clayton County, Victor Hill, James Stewart, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv61941
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Gerald Scott v. Brett Evans
as 22-13351
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GERALD SCOTT
Defendant / Appellee:
BRETT J. EVANS
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2022cv02210
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
