Cases 41 - 50 of 72
Gilda Baker, et al v. CHP, et al
as 13-16870
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GILDA BAKER, Successor and interest to the Decendant, Diallo Sekou Neal Sr. Estate
Plaintiff:
ESTATE OF DIALLO SEKOU NEAL SR., DIALLO SEKOU NEAL, Jr., Successor and interest to the Decendant, Diallo Sekou Neal Sr. Estate and DIARRA SEKAI NEAL, Successor and interest to the Decendant, Diallo Sekou Neal Sr. Estate
Defendant - Appellee:
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, HOWARD JORDAN, PAUL FONTANA and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2013cv01670
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Michele Russo v. Kwai Yee Chan et al
as 2:2013cv05659
Defendant:
Charles Bort, Kwai Yee Chan and Does
Plaintiff:
Michele Russo
Russo v. Maui, County of et al
as 1:2013cv00165
Plaintiff:
Tommy Russo
Defendant:
Maui, County of, Gary Yabuta, Nelson Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Miko Kerr v. Camille Boden et al
as 8:2013cv00256
Defendant:
Camille Boden, Does, Irma Martinez and others
Plaintiff:
Miko Kerr
Amy Gray v. City of Henderson, et al
as 12-17473
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AMY GRAY
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF HENDERSON, STEVENS, Officer, D. THOMLINSON and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv01831
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv01830
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Miko Kerr v. Camille Boden et al
as 8:2012cv01808
Defendant:
Camille Boden, Does, Irma Martinez and others
Plaintiff:
Miko Kerr
Miko Kerr v. Camille Boden et al
as 8:2012cv01545
Defendant:
Camille Boden, DOES, Irma Martinez and others
Plaintiff:
Miko Kerr
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.
