Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Samuel Whatley v. City of North Charleston
as 23-1538
Plaintiff / Appellant:
REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY and SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON, NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, NORTH CHARLESTON CODE ENFORCEMENT and others
Whatley et al v. North Charleston, City of et al
as 2:2023cv00516
Plaintiff:
Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley and Samuel T Whatley, II
Defendant:
North Charleston, City of, North Charleston Police Department, North Charleston Code Enforcement and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Cities4Life, Inc. v. City of Charlotte
as 21-1322
Defendant:
MARK FOWLER, individually and in his official capacity as a City of Charlotte Code Enforcement Inspector, JENNIFER ROBERTS, in her official capacity as Mayor of Charlotte, BEN KRISE, individually and in his official capacity as the City of Charlotte Code Enforcement Division Manager and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
ELIJAH BOYER, CITIES4LIFE, INC., a/k/a Cities4Life Charlotte, DANIEL PARKS and others
Defendant / Appellant:
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Mark Levy v. City of New Carrollton
as 10-2009
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARK B. LEVY and STANLEY S. LEVY
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF NEW CARROLLTON, ANDREW C. HANKO, Mayor of the City of New Carrollton, JOHN A. SCHAFFER, Councilmember for the City of New Carrollton and others
Peterson v. City of Hickory, et al.
as 5:2007cv00074
Plaintiff:
Edith C. Peterson
Defendant:
The City of Hickory Code Enforcement Division in N.C. 28601 , City of Hickory , City of Hickory Planning Board and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
James Riffin v. Raymond Wisnom, Jr.
as 08-1016
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES RIFFIN
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND S. WISNOM, JR., Code Enforcement Hearing Officer and BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, Department of Permits and Development Management
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.
