Cases 71 - 80 of 564
Abell et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 1:2022cv00831
Plaintiff:
Tiarra Abell, Amelita Armendarez, Thomas Ash and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00861
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
FITZGERALD v. RUSSELL et al
as 2:2022cv00853
Plaintiff:
DAVID WONTAE FITZGERALD
Defendant:
RANDY RUSSELL and REISER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00732
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00754
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
BURK JR v. HALL et al
as 3:2022cv02479
Plaintiff:
ISHMAEL ALI BURK JR
Defendant:
SSGT JR HALL, DSG SP FITZGERALD and TPR MD PIERETTI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
BROWN v. HARPER et al
as 2:2022cv00507
Petitioner:
EBEN BROWN
Respondent:
WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER, DEPUTY WARDEN ADAM SMITH, COUNTY EXECUTIVE RICH FITZGERALD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
AVERYTT v. HARPER et al
as 2:2022cv00443
Petitioner:
JAVONIE AVERYTT
Respondent:
WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER, DEPUTY WARDEN ADAM SMITH, RICH FITZGERALD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MOET v. UNITED STATES MILITARY et al
as 2:2022cv01067
Plaintiff:
NENNEH SESAY MOET
Defendant:
UNITED STATES MILITARY, ROCNATION, CVS/DELCO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
SESAY v. MERCY FITZGERALD HOSPITAL
as 2:2022cv00939
Plaintiff:
NENNEH SESAY
Defendant:
MERCY FITZGERALD HOSPITAL
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.
