Cases 11 - 20 of 22
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv02476
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Rogers v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department et al
as 1:2014cv01162
Plaintiff:
Kevin Rogers
Defendant:
Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department , Jack Mahar , Katrina Dinan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv03484
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Rivers v. City of New York et al
as 1:2013cv00835
Defendant:
Detective Jamel Carr, City of New York, John and Jane Does 1-4 and others
Plaintiff:
Timshell Rivers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rogers v. Essex County, et al
as 11-1737
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN ROGERS
Defendant - Appellee:
COUNTY OF ESSEX, ESSEX CTY PROS, ESSEX COURT SHERIFF DEPARTMENT and others
ROGERS v. ESSEX COUNTY et al
as 2:2010cv03979
Plaintiff:
KEVIN ROGERS
Defendant:
ESSEX COUNTY, ESSEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE, ESSEX COURT SHERIFF DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rogers v. City of Fairfield
as 2:2009at01064
Defendant:
City of Fairfield and Andy's Pawn Shop
Plaintiff:
Kevin Rogers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Rogers v. City of Fairfield et al
as 2:2009cv01864
Defendant:
City of Fairfield and Andy's Pawn Shop
Plaintiff:
Kevin Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Rogers, et al v. USA
as 08-2440
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN ROGERS and SOAP-AGENCIA
Plaintiff:
NEW COMMUNITY HOMES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION and ESTATE ARDELL ROGERS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
E. et al v. City of Antioch et al
as 3:2008cv01709
Plaintiff:
Dearmand E., Michael H. and Nicholas P.
Defendant:
City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, James Hyde and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
