Cases 11 - 20 of 20
Mitchell v. Presbyterian Homes of Georgia, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv02718
Plaintiff:
Cherlyn Mitchell
Defendant:
Presbyterian Homes of Georgia, Inc., Thom Rochenbach, Frank H. McElroy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3601
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv04107
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Mason v. Randolph et al
as 1:2013cv01965
Plaintiff:
Tracy Mason
Defendant:
T. Randolph, D. Williams and P. Masselli
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv04474
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Warren v. Fulton County Sheriff's Department et al
as 1:2012cv04299
Plaintiff:
Valencia Warren
Defendant:
Fulton County Sheriff's Department, Randolph Scott, W. Angry and others
Butler v. Fulton County et al
as 1:2012cv01161
Plaintiff:
Joshua Butler
Defendant:
Fulton County , Fulton County Police , Fulton County Sheriff and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1443
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv02416
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Oakhall Properties, LLC et al v. Coweta County, Georgia et al
as 3:2010cv00010
Plaintiff:
Oakhall Properties, LLC, Oakhall Properties, LLC, W. Thompson Lewis and others
Defendant:
Coweta County, Georgia, Coweta County, Georgia, Coweta County, Georgia and others
Duke Realty Limited Partnership v. City of East Point, Georgia et al
as 1:2009cv01573
Plaintiff:
Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Defendant:
City of East Point, Georgia, Richard Randolph, Karim Kahn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Type:
Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00054
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
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.
