Cases 11 - 20 of 120
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00106
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
JOHNSON v. OM HOSPITALITY INC. et al
as 2:2022cv00144
Plaintiff:
ROBERT W. JOHNSON
Defendant:
OM HOSPITALITY INC., AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, AMTRUST GROUP and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv01809
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv01591
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv04634
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Lundy v. Lenning et al
as 3:2021cv01767
Plaintiff:
Steven Love Lundy and Steven Love Lundy Trust
Defendant:
Kenneth Lenning, Matthew Nero, E. David Chtristine and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McShane v. Agents for International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service et al
as 3:2021cv01396
Plaintiff:
Matthew McShane
Defendant:
Agents for International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service, Kristalina Georgieva, Governor of International Monetary Fund and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
VARGAS v. MORRIS et al
as 2:2021cv03298
Plaintiff:
LUIS VARGAS
Defendant:
OFFICER JUSTIN MORRIS (#4597) and OFFICER HALL (#5326)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McShane v. Morris et al
as 3:2021cv01505
Plaintiff:
Matthew McShane
Defendant:
Ken Morris, Monroe County Sheriff Department, Deputies, Agents, Assigns and County of Monroe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CUMMINS, ET v. KENNEY
as 2:2021cv02678
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and MAYOR JAMES F. KENNEY
Plaintiff:
MANDY HANNIVAN, MEGHANN MORRIS, THOMAS CUMMINS 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.
