Cases 61 - 70 of 125
Kennedy v. City of Hitchcock, Texas et al.
as 3:2014cv00385
Plaintiff:
Emmitt Kennedy, III
Defendant:
City of Hitchcock, Texas, Anthony Matranga, Clay Kennelly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hitchcock v. Moses Lake, City of et al
as 2:2014cv00371
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey S Hitchcock
Defendant:
Moses Lake, City of , Moses Lake Police Department , Dean Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Lyons v. Ledbetter et al
as 1:2014cv03467
Plaintiff:
Jonathan A. Lyons
Defendant:
Bobby D. Ledbetter , Brandon Hitchcock , City of Loganville and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv02547
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jeffrey Isaacs v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al
as 14-3985
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DR. JEFFREY DAVID ISAACS
Defendant - Appellee:
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, DR. MARC BERTRAND, DR. JIM YONG KIM and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00321
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
J.D. Isaacs v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical, et al
as 14-1544
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JEFFREY DAVID ISAACS
Defendant - Appellee:
DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER, MARY HITCHCOCK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, CHRISTINE T. FINN and others
Defendant:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE TRUSTEES, JIM YONG KIM and DOUGLAS NOORDSY
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 14-1742
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv00068
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 14-1736
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
