Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Kim v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2026cv00082
Plaintiff:
Ohyoon Kim
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Interested Party:
SSA-Email Notification
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Case name not on file
as 2:2026cv12630
Interpleader:
Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Sean-Joseph Brown and Kim Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action
Thompson v. Wauseon Healthcare, LLC, et al.
as 3:2026cv01655
Defendant:
Wauseon Healthcare, LLC, Ayden Healthcare of Wauseon and Kim Dunlap
Plaintiff:
Gina Thompson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12131 Americans with Disabilities
Sutterfield et al v. Lowes Home Center, LLC et al
as 1:2026cv02038
Plaintiff:
Kim Sutterfield and Nancy Sutterfield
Defendant:
Lowes Home Center, LLC and M&C Assemblies, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01508
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
McCreary v. Detroit Police Department et al
as 2:2026cv12172
Plaintiff:
Carnell M. McCreary
Defendant:
Detroit Police Department, Alexandria Wolf, Kim L. Worthy and others
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Cleveland v. Wayne, County of et al
as 5:2026cv12162
Plaintiff:
Pierre Cleveland
Defendant:
Wayne, County of, Kim Worthy and John Doe
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
McKissick v. City of Selmer, Tennessee et al
as 1:2026cv01132
Plaintiff:
Darell McKissick
Defendant:
City of Selmer, Tennessee, Blake Buntyn, Ted Roberts and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Harp v. Washington County, Tennessee et al
as 2:2026cv00129
Plaintiff:
Kim Harp
Defendant:
Washington County, Tennessee, Sarah Lawson, Royston Auction Company and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
