Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Tigner v. CITY OF MEMPHIS et al
as 2:2023cv02555
Plaintiff:
Charles Henderson Tigner, IV
Defendant:
CITY OF MEMPHIS, Memphis Police Department of Shelby County, Bob Franklin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Henderson v. Sell et al
as 1:2020cv00139
Defendant:
Neal Pinkston, Chattanooga, TN Housing Authority, Andrew Basler and others
Plaintiff:
Ernest Henderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tigner v. Memphis Police Department of Shelby County, TN et al
as 2:2016cv02287
Plaintiff:
Charles Henderson Tigner, IV
Defendant:
Memphis Police Department of Shelby County, TN, Connor Shielling, Gloria Winfrey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moses Moore, et al v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al
as 08-4553
Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
MOSES MOORE, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, ROSS J. SATTERFIELD, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, BART J. KOCHIS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES HALL, JR., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and WILLIAM WANDRYCH, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MORTON RETIRED EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE PLAN
Defendant - Appellee:
DOES 1-20
Moses Moore, et al v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al
as 08-4545
Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
MOSES MOORE, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, ROSS J. SATTERFIELD, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, BART J. KOCHIS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and others
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JAMES HALL, JR., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and WILLIAM WANDRYCH, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MORTON RETIRED EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE PLAN
Defendant:
DOES 1-20
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.
