Cases 1 - 10 of 59
Flinn et al v. City of Evanston
as 1:2024cv04269
Plaintiff:
Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas and others
Defendant:
City of Evanston
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Bird v. Biss et al
as 1:2024cv00310
Plaintiff:
Liam Bird
Defendant:
Daniel Biss, Luke Stowe, Alexandra Ruggie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv04218
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv06461
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv04937
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Morales et al v. City Of Evanston et al
as 1:2022cv02725
Plaintiff:
Crystal Morales, Elisheba Morales and Aiesha Anderson
Defendant:
City Of Evanston, Loyce Spells, Michael Cameron and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Mack v. Servatius, #253 et al
as 1:2022cv02560
Plaintiff:
Sheldon Mack
Defendant:
Evanston Police Officer Servatius, #253 and City Of Evanston
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Deemar v. Boad of Educaton of the City of Evanston/Skokie District 65 et al
as 1:2021cv03466
Defendant:
Devon Horton, Stacy Beardsley, LaTarsha Green and others
Plaintiff:
Stacy Deemar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00267
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Murphy v. Velez et al
as 1:2020cv04482
Plaintiff:
Elijah Murphy
Defendant:
Luis Velez, Ryan Kleinpaste and City of Evanston Illinois
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
