Civil Rights Cases filed in the Ninth Circuit Courts
Cases 11 - 20 of 370
Nathanial Hasher v. City of Rochester, et al
as 23-35576
Plaintiff / Appellant: NATHANIAL JAMES HASHER
Defendant / Appellee: CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal entity, E. FRITZ, Officer, Badge No. 187, personally, individually, and in his capacity as a Rochester Police Officer, FAUDSKAR, Officer, personally, individually, and in his capacity as a Rochester Police and others
Helen Doe, et al v. Thomas Horne, et al
as 23-16030
Plaintiff / Appellee: HELEN DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, JAMES DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, KATE ROE, parent and next friend of Megan Roe and others
Defendant / Appellant: THOMAS C. HORNE, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Defendant: LAURA TOENJES, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Kyrene School District, KYRENE SCHOOL DISTRICT, GREGORY SCHOOL and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant: WARREN PETERSEN, Senator, President of the Arizona State Senate and BEN TOMA, Representative, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
Amicus Curiae: MARY I. O'CONNOR, CAROL BROWN, PATRICIA SPRATLEN ETEM, VALERIE McCLAIN, AND JAN PALCHIKOFF, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, AND SAMARITAN'S PURSE, INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ON WOMENS SPORT and others
Helen Doe, et al v. Thomas Horne, et al
as 23-16026
Plaintiff / Appellee: HELEN DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, JAMES DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe, KATE ROE, parent and next friend of Megan Roe and others
Defendant: THOMAS C. HORNE, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, LAURA TOENJES, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Kyrene School District, KYRENE SCHOOL DISTRICT and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant: WARREN PETERSEN, Senator, President of the Arizona State Senate and BEN TOMA, Representative, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
Amicus Curiae: MARY I. O'CONNOR, CAROL BROWN, PATRICIA SPRATLEN ETEM, VALERIE McCLAIN, AND JAN PALCHIKOFF, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, AND SAMARITAN'S PURSE, INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ON WOMENS SPORT and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2022cv06801
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
Hasher v. City of Rochester et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv00196
Plaintiff: Nathanial James Hasher
Defendant: City of Rochester, Officer E Fritz, Officer Faudskar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Black Lives Matter Los Angeles et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2020cv05027
Defendant: Chief Michel Moore, City of Los Angeles and Does 1-10 inclusive
Plaintiff: Linus Shentu, Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, Weston Rowland and others
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider: Richard T. Copeland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04982
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
Crow v. State of Idaho, et al.
as 3:2023cv00263
Plaintiff: Chad Crow
Defendant: State of Idaho, County of Lewis, Jason Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe et al v. Horne et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 4:2023cv00185
Plaintiff: Helen Doe, James Doe, Kate Roe and others
Defendant: Thomas C Horne, Laura Toenjes, Kyrene School District and others
Intervenor: Warren Petersen and Ben Toma
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00171
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)

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.


Why Is My Information Online?