Cases 21 - 30 of 57
Brian Davison v. Phyllis Randall
as 17-2003
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRIAN DAVISON
Defendant - Appellee:
PHYLLIS RANDALL, In her official and individual capacity
Defendant:
LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, In their official and individual capacities, LEO P. ROGERS, In his official capacity, TONY BUFFINGTON, In his official capacity and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2017cv00824
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
My'Ka El v. R. Reese
as 17-6397
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MY'KA EL
Defendant - Appellee:
R. REESE, Officer
Defendant:
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, M. SULLIVAN, Officer, S. SELOGY, Officer and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2017cv00776
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors et al
as 1:2016cv00932
Plaintiff:
Brian C. Davison
Defendant:
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors , Leo Rogers , Phyllis Randall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00465
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Sherif Philips v. North Carolina State
as 16-1119
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHERIF PHILIPS, M.D.
Defendant - Appellee:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE, NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM, NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY and others
El v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department et al
as 3:2016cv00051
Plaintiff:
My'Ka El
Defendant:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, M. Sullivan, S. Selogy and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2015cv05007
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Smith v. Stansfield et al
as 1:2015cv03087
Plaintiff:
Nicole M. Smith
Defendant:
Thomas F. Stansfield, Diane S. Rosenberg, Mark D. Meyer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
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.
