Cases 1 - 10 of 59
Antar v. Grogins
as 24-910
Plaintiff:
THEODORA F. ANTAR, Individually and as next friend and legal guardian of her minor child A.L. and J.V.
Defendant:
Honorable Judge AUDEN GROGINS, Individually and officially, Honorable Judge SCOTT JONES, Individually and officially, Honorable Judge JANE KUPSON GROSSMAN, individually and officially and others
McGuire v. Town of Cheektowaga
as 24-529
Not Yet Classified:
STACIE MCGUIRE, PAT CHLUDZINSKI, individually, and in his capacity as a Town of Cheektowaga Police Officer, TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA and others
Defendant:
JOHN DOES, individually, and in his/her capacity as a Town of Cheektowaga Police Officer and COREY MCGUIRE
Jane Doe and John Doe v. Hilton Central School District et al
as 6:2023cv06368
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe and John Doe, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of John Doe II and Jane Doe and John Doe
Defendant:
Hilton Central School District, Casey Kosiorek, David Dimbleby and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Jane Doe and John Doe, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of John Doe II v. Hilton Central School District et al
as 6:2023cv06369
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe and John Doe, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of John Doe II
Defendant:
Hilton Central School District, Casey Kosiorek, David Dimbleby and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Jane Doe and John Doe v. Hilton Central School District et al
as 6:2023cv06367
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe and John Doe, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of John Doe II and Jane Doe and John Doe
Defendant:
Hilton Central School District, Casey Kosiorek and Kirk Ashton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Jordan v. Corrections
as 23-708
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Victor L. Jordan, Sr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Connecticut Department of Corrections, Official Capacity, Rollin Cook, Comm of Correc., Ret, Official & Individual Capacity, Angel Quiros, Comm of Corr., Official & Individual Capacity and others
Defendant:
Solomon Baymon, Dep. Warden, Ret., Official & Individual Capacity, Jeffrey C. Jeannotte, Dep. Warden, Official & Individual Capacity, Barone, Warden, Official & Individual Capacity and others
Miehle-Kellogg v. Doe
as 23-669
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Terri Miehle-Kellogg, Administratrix of the Estate of Walter Kellogg, deceased and individually
Defendant / Appellee:
Officer John Doe, individually and in his capacity as a Police Officer of the Suffolk County Police Department, County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department
Smith v. Doe
as 22-1899
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Kimberly Smith
Defendant / Appellee:
Parole Officer Michael P. Kenny, Individually, Parole Officer Robert B. Rosenberger, Individually, John Gemmati, Hudson Valley Regional Director and others
Defendant:
Parole Officer Jane Doe, Individually, Jack Doe, Parole Department Supervisor and Administrator, individually, Jill Doe I-XIV, Parole Depart,emt Supervisors and Administrators, individually and others
Frederick v. Doe
as 22-1379
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nigel V. Fredericks
Defendant / Appellee:
Correction Officer John Shaheen, #5258, individually and in their official capacities, Correction Officer John Richardson, #18595, individually and in their official capacities, Andrew Henry, Correctional Officer and others
Defendant:
Correction Officer John Doe, Post A, individually and in their official capacities, Deputy Officer John Doe, individually and in their official capacities, Captain Officer John Doe, individually and in their official capacities and others
Brace v. Johnson
as 22-590
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Ronald Brace
Defendant / Appellee:
Officer Ryan Johnson, individually and as an employee of the City of Albany Police Department and Jeffrey Grener, individually and as an employee of the City of Albany Police Department
Defendant:
John Doe, individually and as an employee of the City of Albany Police Department
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.
