Cases 31 - 40 of 41
HICKSON et al v. MAURO et al
as 1:2011cv06304
Plaintiff:
EARL D. HICKSON and MARKLAND K. GRANT
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHER C. MAURO, KATHLEEN M. BARTUS, SHARON FEDACZYNSKY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JAMES v. FREEMAN DECORATING SERVICES, INC. et al
as 2:2011cv00244
Plaintiff:
CHRISTINE JAMES
Defendant:
FREEMAN DECORATING SERVICES, INC. and BILL KUEHNLE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv06024
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross_claimant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cross_defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TIETCHEN v. EDISON TOWNSHIP et al
as 2:2010cv03939
Plaintiff:
ADAM J. TIETCHEN
Defendant:
EDISON TOWNSHIP, JUN CHOI, EDISON TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TIETCHEN v. CHOI et al
as 2:2009cv05993
Plaintiff:
ADAM L. TIETCHEN
Defendant:
JUH H. CHOI, BRIAN COLLIER, THOMAS BRYAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv02545
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2008cv04606
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2007cv03099
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv01519
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
TOY et al v. GAMBALE et al
as 1:2007cv01288
Plaintiff:
DORIS CECELIA TOY and JOSEPH T. TOY
Defendant:
NICOLA GAMBALE, GAMBALE CONSTRUCTION CO., GEORGE BOTCHEOS 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.
