Cases 11 - 19 of 19
Steven Ondo, et al v. City of Cleveland, et al
as 14-3527
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STEVEN ONDO and JONATHAN SIMCOX
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF CLEVELAND, THOMAS TINTELNOT, OFFICER CAVANAUGH and others
Defendant:
CLIFFORD KIME
Carol Pizzuto v. Scott Smith
as 13-1887
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CAROL L. PIZZUTO
Defendant - Appellee:
SCOTT R. SMITH, KEITH C. GAMBLE, STEPHEN M. FOWLER and others
Defendant:
OFFICER ZIMMERMAN
Ondo et al v. City of Cleveland et al
as 1:2013cv00762
Defendant:
City of Cleveland, Clifford Kime, Thomas Tintelnot and others
Plaintiff:
Steven Ondo and Jonathan Simcox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Karkoszka v. Dart et al
as 1:2013cv01635
Plaintiff:
James Karkoszka
Defendant:
Thomas Dart, Cook County, Sergeant Beecham and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Norris v. The City Of Rochester, et al
as 6:2013cv06100
Plaintiff:
John L Norris
Defendant:
The City Of Rochester, Officer Robinson and John Doe Supervisors #1-5
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Randolph v. Obama et al
as 3:2011cv00928
Plaintiff:
Kelda K. Randolph
Defendant:
Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Does 1-10 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jeffries v. Robinson et al
as 1:2008cv06922
Plaintiff:
Daniel Jeffries, Daniel Jeffries, Daniel Jeffries and others
Defendant:
Officer Robinson, Officer Morales and John Does 1-4
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Gerhardt v. Carden et al
as 1:2008cv02619
Plaintiff:
Michael Gerhardt, Michael Gerhardt, Michael Gerhardt and others
Defendant:
Officer Carden, Officer Robinson, Officer Rodman and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Carlos-El v. Devine et al
as 1:2007cv05914
Plaintiff:
Walter Steven Carlos-El
Defendant:
Richard A. Devine, Officer/Sgt. Gill, Officer/Sgt. Mersen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
