Cases 31 - 40 of 482
Doe #1 (MSA) et al v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00784
Plaintiff:
John Doe #1 (MSA) and John Doe #2 (TRB)
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00268
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00655
Plaintiff:
John Doe and John Doe (JEA)
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe (JDR) v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00651
Plaintiff:
John Doe (JDR)
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe (DEA) v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00640
Plaintiff:
John Doe (DEA)
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #1 (JCA) et al v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00634
Plaintiff:
John Doe #1 (JCA), John Doe #2 (BA), John Doe #3 (JRA) and others
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Duff et al v. City of Crossville, Tennessee et al
as 2:2023cv00037
Plaintiff:
Christopher Duff, Starlene Gilbert, Boyd Alan Kearley and others
Defendant:
City of Crossville, Tennessee, Koby Wilson, Zach Young and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #1 v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00592
Plaintiff:
John Doe #1
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv00562
Plaintiff:
Carl Jones
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Williams Bowers Management, LLC et al
as 3:2023cv00477
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Defendant:
Williams Bowers Management, LLC doing business as Wide Open Music, Ash Bowers, Jimmie Allen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
