Cases 31 - 40 of 65
Hartman et al v. Thompson et al
as 3:2016cv00114
Plaintiff:
Chris Hartman , Sonja De Vries and Carla Wallace
Defendant:
Jeremy Thompson , Jason Drane and Brian Hill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Maclin v. Cuyahoga County's Ombudsman et al
as 1:2015cv01631
Plaintiff:
Mario Lawrence Maclin
Defendant:
Cuyahoga County's Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services, Murtis H. Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Davis v. Robert et al
as 2:2015cv12076
Plaintiff:
Robert Trevor-Blair Davis, Sr.
Defendant:
Carla A. Robert and Suzanne T. Hall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Thornsbury v. Crowe et al
as 3:2014cv00165
Plaintiff:
Carla Thornsbury
Defendant:
Brian Crowe and Montgomery County Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Maclin v. Adult Protective Services et al
as 1:2014cv01074
Plaintiff:
Mario L. Maclin
Defendant:
Adult Protective Services, Carla Duncan, F.B.I. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Denise Coley, et al v. Lucas County, Ohio, et al
as 14-3136
Plaintiff - Appellee:
DENISE M. COLEY, Administrator of the estate of Carlton L. Benton, DECARLOS A. BENTON, M. L., a minor and others
Defendant:
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, LUCAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JAMES A. TELB and others
Defendant - Appellant:
JAY M. SCHMELTZ
Denise Coley, et al v. Lucas County, Ohio, et al
as 14-3137
Plaintiff - Appellee:
DENISE M. COLEY, Administrator of the estate of Carlton L. Benton, DECARLOS A. BENTON, M. L., a minor and others
Defendant:
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, LUCAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JOHN E. GRAY and others
Defendant - Appellant:
JAMES A. TELB
Denise Coley, et al v. Lucas County, Ohio, et al
as 14-3134
Plaintiff - Appellee:
DENISE M. COLEY, Administrator of the estate of Carlton L. Benton, DECARLOS A. BENTON, M. L., a minor and others
Defendant:
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, LUCAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JAMES A. TELB and others
Defendant - Appellant:
JOHN E. GRAY
Nancy Woods, et al v. Linnie Willis, et al
as 14-3029
Plaintiff - Appellee:
NANCY WOODS, in her own right and as representatives of all similarly situated Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program participants. and CARLA MCCULLOUGH, in her own right and as representatives of all similarly situated Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program participants.
Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
CAULENE FULLER, in her own right and as representatives of all similarly situated Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program participants.
Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
LINNIE WILLIS, personally and in her official capacity as Executive Director, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority
Defendant:
MARGARET MIRACOLA, personally and in her official capacity as Director, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Choice Voucher Program and CANDACE RENNER, personally and in her official capacity as Hearing Officer, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority
Nancy Woods, et al v. Linnie Willis, et al
as 14-3016
Plaintiff - Appellee:
NANCY WOODS, in her own right and as representatives of all similarly situated Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program participants., CAULENE FULLER, in her own right and as representatives of all similarly situated Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program participants. and CARLA MCCULLOUGH, in her own right and as representatives of all similarly situated Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program participants.
Defendant - Appellant:
LINNIE WILLIS, personally and in her official capacity as Executive Director, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority
Defendant:
MARGARET MIRACOLA, personally and in her official capacity as Director, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Choice Voucher Program and CANDACE RENNER, personally and in her official capacity as Hearing Officer, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority
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.
