Cases 41 - 50 of 637
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00099
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 203 Equal Pay Act
Brown v. Reed et al
as 3:2022cv50359
Plaintiff:
Mr. Anthony M Brown
Defendant:
Mr. Paul Reed, Officer Hruska, Waylon Weber and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Adam Bergeron v. Matthew Leisten, et al
as 23-2236
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ADAM KEN BERGERON
Defendant / Appellee:
MATTHEW R. LEISTEN, State Attorney and KATHLEEN ISLEY, Public Defender for Ogle County Courthouse
Patinkin v. Sutker-Dermer et al
as 1:2023cv03540
Plaintiff:
Seth S. Patinkin
Defendant:
Shelley Sutker-Dermer, Jeffrey L. Warnick, Adam M. Kingsley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Adam Bergeron v. Jayne Braden
as 23-2235
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ADAM KEN BERGERON
Defendant / Appellee:
JAYNE A, BRADEN, Clinical Psychologist and JAYNE A. BRADEN, Clinical Psychologist
Swick v. Google
as 3:2023cv00543
Plaintiff:
Adam R Swick
Defendant:
Google
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Swick v. Comcast Business
as 3:2023cv00531
Plaintiff:
Adam R Swick
Defendant:
Comcast Business
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Robinson v. City of Chicago et al
as 1:2023cv03400
Plaintiff:
Evans Robinson, III and Evan Robinson
Defendant:
City of Chicago, C.J. Smith, C.W. Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Wynn, Charles v. State of Wisconsin et al
as 3:2023cv00364
Plaintiff:
Charles Ruben Wynn
Defendant:
State of Wisconsin and Heather Adams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. City of Middleton, et al
as 23-2332
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF MIDDLETON, MARK OPITZ and ABBY ATTOUN, Director of Planning & Community Development for the City of Middleton
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.
