Cases 1 - 9 of 9
April Davis v. WMATA
as 23-2300
Plaintiff:
APRIL A. DAVIS
Defendant:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY and RANDY CLARKE
Sharon Williams v. WMATA
as 23-1831
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHARON WILLIAMS
Defendant / Appellee:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Carol Everhart v. WMATA
as 13-1758
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CAROL EVERHART
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
James Hutcherson, Jr. v. Chae Lim
as 13-1619
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES N. HUTCHERSON, JR. and SHARON T. HUTCHERSON, as wife of James N. Hutcherson, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
CHAE Y. LIM, individually and in his professional/employment capacity
Defendant:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, d/b/a WMATA
Gregory Rheubottom v. WMATA
as 12-2423
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GREGORY RHEUBOTTOM
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Defendant:
ALSTOM TRANSPORTATION, INC. and IFE NORTH AMERICA
Raymond Burns, Jr. v. WMATA
as 12-1903
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RAYMOND S. BURNS, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and others
James Hutcherson, Jr. v. Chae Lim
as 10-1937
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES N. HUTCHERSON, JR. and SHARON T. HUTCHERSON
Defendant - Appellee:
CHAE Y. LIM, individually and in his professional/employment capacity
Defendant:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Eddie Cheris v. Washington Metropolitan Area T
as 09-1586
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDDIE CHERIS
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Joyce Bagley v. WMATA
as 09-1330
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOYCE F. BAGLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Defendant - None:
KONE, INCORPORATED
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.