Cases 11 - 20 of 144
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00276
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
DUE v. DAWSON et al
as 1:2022cv00103
Plaintiff:
RANDALL DAVID DUE
Defendant:
ROBERT T DAWSON, MATTHEW R HOFFMAN and BRIAN D BAILEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
ARCHIBALD v. AT&T D/B/A CELLULAR WORLD et al
as 4:2022cv00097
Plaintiff:
ABBYGALE S ARCHIBALD
Defendant:
COLUMBUS STORE AT&T D/B/A CELLULAR WORLD For Use And Benefit Of AT&T D/B/A CELLULAR WORLD, MANAGER JORDAN LNU, CASHIER KIERA LNU and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
REID v. LAND et al
as 3:2022cv00053
Plaintiff:
RHONDA REID
Defendant:
JUDGE CLAY D LAND, GREENE COUNTY, STATE OF GEORGIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00125
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
CHURCH v. CHURCH et al
as 1:2022cv00017
Plaintiff:
KELVIN DEWAYNE CHURCH
Defendant:
KASEY D CHURCH and KELVIN D CHURCH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ANDERSON v. HARVEY et al
as 1:2021cv00212
Plaintiff:
SONIA L ANDERSON
Defendant:
TAMARAIE HARVEY, CHARLIESA FISHER, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv00404
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
APONTE v. MCCARTHY
as 4:2021cv00193
Plaintiff:
IVAN. E. APONTE and IVAN E APONTE
Defendant:
RYAN D MCCARTHY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AT WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv00232
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
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.
