Cases 31 - 40 of 401
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2023cv00499
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
ROBINSON v. GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al
as 1:2023cv00087
Plaintiff:
ALVIN D. ROBINSON
Defendant:
GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and DANNY H. ROGERS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Religion)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2023cv00010
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00053
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01034
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act
Caryn Strickland v. US
as 22-1963
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARYN DEVINS STRICKLAND
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, BRIAN STACY MILLER, The Hon., in his official capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources and others
Hong Tang v. Kurt Schmoke
as 22-1889
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HONG TANG
Defendant / Appellee:
KURT L. SCHMOKE, in his official and individual capacities, DARLENE BRANNIGAN SMITH, in her official capacity, JOSEPH S. WOOD, in his official and individual capacities and others
Mayhew v. Harris et al
as 3:2022cv00565
Plaintiff:
Cody S Mayhew
Defendant:
Roger L. Harris, John Kcraget and Steve A. Noakes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation (Excess Force)
Rogers v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 2:2022cv00324
Plaintiff:
Cornelius V. Rogers
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
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.
