Cases 21 - 30 of 206
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv01017
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv03152
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Lundmark v. Beltrami County et al
as 0:2022cv01493
Plaintiff:
Steven J. Lundmark
Defendant:
Beltrami County, Clearwater County, MEnD Correctional Care, PLLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Parker v. Greater Regional Health et al
as 4:2022cv00137
Plaintiff:
Darla Parker
Defendant:
Greater Regional Health, Monte Neizel, Amy Rieck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 ad Job Discrimination (Disability Act)
Acton v. Rahn et al
as 4:2022cv00260
Plaintiff:
Larry Thomas Acton
Defendant:
Kaye Lynn Rahn, Mary Corinne Corley, Kimberly Shirk and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Clervrain et al v. Fortenberry et al
as 7:2022cv05003
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain and Wesner Compere
Defendant:
Jeff Fortenberry, Don Bacon, Adrian Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Acton v. Rahn, et al
as 4:2022cv00137
Plaintiff:
Larry Acton
Defendant:
Kaye Rahn, Amy Lynette VanCamp, Larry V Swall and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Pierce v. Itasca County et al
as 0:2022cv00441
Plaintiff:
Debra Faye Pierce
Defendant:
Itasca County, Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., Fairview Health Services and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2022cv00042
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv00006
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities 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.
