Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv09480
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
WATKINS-EDMOND v. INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.
as 3:2019cv15338
Defendant:
INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.
Plaintiff:
TOPAZA WATKINS-EDMOND
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
WATKINS v. CITY OF NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2017cv00284
Plaintiff:
SHAQUANNA WATKINS
Defendant:
CITY OF NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILBERTO RUIZ, ESSEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RADLINGER et al v. GLOUCESTER COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER et al
as 1:2016cv04778
Plaintiff:
STEPHANIE RADLINGER and STUART GOLDMAN
Defendant:
GLOUCESTER COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, WILLIAM LOMBARDI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00814
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv02911
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
WATKINS v. FEDERICO et al
as 3:2012cv07362
Plaintiff:
BRIAN WATKINS
Defendant:
ALFRED FEDERICO, JANET VANFOSSEN and SUE REGAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2011cv04590
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
IN RE: CAMDEN POLICE CASES
as 1:2011cv01315
Plaintiff:
ALANDA FORREST , JEFFREY HICKS , FRANK SHAW and others
Defendant:
KEVIN PARRY, JASON STETSER, CITY OF CAMDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JACKSON v. CITY OF CAMDEN et al
as 1:2010cv06188
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH JACKSON
Defendant:
CITY OF CAMDEN, JOHN S. THOMPSON, JASON STETSER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
