Cases 21 - 30 of 5,244
Fly v. Woodcock et al
as 6:2024cv03151
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Fly
Defendant:
Deputy Jacob Woodcock and Christian County, Missouri
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Peet et al v. City of Sikeston, Missouri et al
as 1:2024cv00094
Plaintiff:
Gregory Allen Peet, Sr. and Audrea Rachelle Peet
Defendant:
City of Sikeston, Missouri, Greg Turnbow, Jonathan Douglass and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Keys v. Busey Bank Headquarters
as 4:2024cv00684
Plaintiff:
Sidney Keys, Sr.
Defendant:
Busey Bank Headquarters
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Keys v. PNC Bank Headquarters
as 4:2024cv00677
Plaintiff:
Sidney Keys, Sr.
Defendant:
PNC Bank Headquarters
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Taylor v. Bolton et al
as 6:2024cv03148
Plaintiff:
Gary Taylor
Defendant:
Taylor Bolton, Steven Hartman and City of Springfield, Missouri
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Adkins v. Skivers et al
as 4:2024cv00343
Plaintiff:
Robert Joshua Adkins
Defendant:
Officer Jason Skivers, City of Sugar Creek, Officer Ethan Meier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
St. Clair v. Kansas City Art Institute
as 4:2024cv00337
Plaintiff:
Kathy St. Clair
Defendant:
Kansas City Art Institute
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Humphrey v. Douglas Prosecuting Attorney
as 6:2024cv03135
Plaintiff:
Thomas Edward Humphrey
Defendant:
Douglas Prosecuting Attorney
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights
Johnson v. Jackson County et al
as 4:2024cv00321
Plaintiff:
TeLissah R Johnson
Defendant:
MO Jackson County, Eric Lyles and Joseph Turley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rundquist: v. Crane et al
as 4:2024cv00320
Plaintiff:
Scott-Gregory Rundquist:
Defendant:
Sue Crane, Family Support Division, Andrew Bailey and others
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.
