Cases 1 - 10 of 125
CSC Sugar LLC v. M/V ST. PAUL, IMO: 9623051 et al
as 1:2024cv00984
Plaintiff:
CSC Sugar LLC
Defendant:
M/V ST. PAUL, IMO: 9623051 and Asterope Shipping Co. Ltd
Garnishee:
Master of the M/V ST.PAUL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1272
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00938
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01202
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Johnson v. Wells Fargo et al
as 6:2021cv00412
Defendant:
President Obama, Dale O'Shields, St. Paul Baptist Church and others
Plaintiff:
Clarence D. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles vonRosenberg v. Mark Lawrence
as 20-2295
Defendant / Appellant:
HOLY APOSTLES, BARNWELL, THE RIGHT REVEREND MARK J. LAWRENCE, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNETTSVILLE, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Defendant:
CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW, THE VESTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF PRINCE GEORGE WINYAH, CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, MYRTLE BEACH and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
HITT Contracting, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company et al
as 8:2020cv02880
Defendant:
National Enclosure Company, LLC, XL Insurance America, Inc., Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd. and others
Plaintiff:
HITT Contracting, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract
Charles vonRosenberg v. Mark Lawrence
as 20-1061
Defendant / Appellant:
HOLY APOSTLES, BARNWELL, THE RIGHT REVEREND MARK J. LAWRENCE, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNETTSVILLE, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Defendant:
THE VESTRIES AND CHURCHWARDENS OF THE PARISH OF ST. ANDREWS, CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW, THE VESTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF PRINCE GEORGE WINYAH and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Bryant et al v. City of Norfolk et al
as 2:2020cv00026
Defendant:
Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, City of Norfolk, United States Department of Housing & Urban Development and others
Plaintiff:
Brandon Sprately, Conswayla Simmons, Evonne Bryant and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3601
Charles vonRosenberg v. Church of the Cross, Inc.
as 19-2163
Defendant / Appellant:
CHRIST CHURCH, FLORENCE, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNETTSVILLE, INC., THE VESTRY AND WARDENS OF ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, SUMMERVILLE and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Defendant:
CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW, THE CORPORATION CURRENTLY CALLING ITSELF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE TRUSTEES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and others
Not Yet Classified:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
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.
