Cases 1 - 10 of 51
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04607
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01837
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv15115
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
BOZELL v. MADDIX et al
as 1:2023cv01226
Plaintiff:
DAVID BOZELL
Defendant:
DRAKE MADDIX and DYLAN PRATHER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00690
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
of the house of Stutzman et al v. Gatt et al
as 3:2023cv00066
Plaintiff:
ruth-ann of the house of Stutzman, r. j. and a. h.
Defendant:
Stephanie A. Gatt, P. Joseph Hass, Jr., Michael J. Caywood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
of the house of Stutzman et al v. Gatt et al
as 1:2023cv00026
Plaintiff:
ruth-ann of the house of Stutzman, r. j. and a. h.
Defendant:
Stephanie A. Gatt, P. Joseph Hass, Jr., Michael J. Caywood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Cortrez Slater v. Antony Blinken, et al
as 22-1533
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CORTREZ D. SLATER
Defendant / Appellee:
ANTONY BLINKEN, LORETTA H. RUSH, Chief Justice Indiana, TOM PARKER, Chief Justice Alabama and others
Slater v. Blinken et al
as 1:2022cv00070
Plaintiff:
Cortrez D Slater
Defendant:
Antony Blinken, Loretta H Rush, Tom Parker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv02773
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
