Cases 21 - 30 of 79
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv02505
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 626 Job Discrimination (Age)
JHB Investments et al v. Washington County et al
as 2:2017cv00027
Plaintiff:
JHB Investments and John H Bagley
Defendant:
Washington County , Washington County Planning & Parks Department , Herb Tennies and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
NICKELL v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION
as 1:2016cv03193
Defendant:
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION
Plaintiff:
DUANE NICKELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rogers v. Seybold et al
as 1:2015cv00361
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Rogers
Defendant:
Wayne Seybold, Tom Hunt, Mike Gilbert and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Duane Derfus, et al v. City of Chicago
as 15-1972
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DUANE DERFUS and STEVEN PETKIEWICZ
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF CHICAGO
Pulera v. Sarzant et al
as 2:2015cv00461
Defendant:
Victoria Sarzant , Dennis Zawilla , Shane Gerber and others
Plaintiff:
Zachary Pulera
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clifton Morgan v. City of Chicago, et al
as 14-3307
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLIFTON MORGAN
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF CHICAGO, DUANE DE VRIES, Police Officer, Star #250, CHRISTIAN TSOUKALAS, Police Officer, Star #1724 and others
DICUS v. LARRY FANNIN'S FAMILY FORD, LLC et al
as 1:2014cv01571
Defendant:
JARROD DUANE BRADBURY, DEVOY, LARRY FANNIN'S FAMILY FORD, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
AMY MICHELLE DICUS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 14-2681
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Laba et al v. Chicago Transit Authority
as 1:2014cv04091
Plaintiff:
Duane Laba , Steve Affarano , Duffy McGann and others
Defendant:
Chicago Transit Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
