Cases 51 - 60 of 3,922
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-2085
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cruz, et al v. City Of Deming, et al
as 24-2091
Defendant:
ADAM ARAGON, ASHLEY STANDRIDGE, ARTURO BAEZA and others
Plaintiff:
ERNESTINA CRUZ, as personal representative of the Estate of Gilbert Valencia and G.R.V., a minor, through next friend Marianna Wheeler
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02143
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2024cv04653
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Strege v. Charles Schwab
as 24-10525
Plaintiff:
Adam Strege
Defendant:
Equifax, Incorporated, BMO Bank, Bank America and others
Vitellaro v. City of Park Ridge et al
as 1:2024cv04797
Defendant:
Frank Kaminski, Kim Foxx, Count of Cook and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Vitellaro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
DeLeon (PS) v. County of Adams, The et al
as 1:2024cv01604
Plaintiff:
Thomas Joseph DeLeon, Sr.
Defendant:
J. M. Cook, County of Adams, The and Holguin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
A. Philip Randolph Institute v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
as 24-1512
Defendant:
SUSAN DOYLE, in her official capacity as DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 13, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, KAREN BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and others
Plaintiff:
ACTION NC and NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1979
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04607
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
