Cases 41 - 50 of 405
Linton v. United States
as 7:2022cv00581
Plaintiff:
David Linton
Defendant:
C. C. Thayer, Montgomery County Commonwealth Attorney, Montgomery County Sheriffs Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Courthouse News Service v. Hade et al
as 3:2021cv00460
Plaintiff:
Courthouse News Service
Defendant:
Karl R. Hade and Jacqueline C. Smith
Intervenor Defendant:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
Garnett v. Powell et al
as 3:2022cv00607
Plaintiff:
Sade C Garnett
Defendant:
Jermaine A Powell and Tori Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00570
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00340
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Disability Act)
Willoughby v. Clarke et al
as 3:2022cv00567
Plaintiff:
Mike Malcolm Willoughby
Defendant:
Dr. Mary Clarke, Dr. Ericka Young, Dr. C. Alexander and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Porter v. Ohai
as 6:2022cv00048
Plaintiff:
Gary Porter
Defendant:
Paul C. Ohai, M.D.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Smith v. Davis
as 2:2022cv00380
Plaintiff:
Franklin C. Smith
Defendant:
Chief District Judge Mark Steven Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00341
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00266
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
