Cases 71 - 80 of 86
Wong-Colobong v. Maui Divers of Hawaii et al
as 1:2009cv00192
Plaintiff:
Seannette Wong-Colobong
Defendant:
Maui Divers of Hawaii, Robert Taylor, Owen Masaki and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00570
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2008cv04012
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2008cv00262
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Taylor v. Social Security Administration Office (MAG+)
as 2:2008cv00105
Plaintiff:
Robert Taylor
Defendant:
Social Security Administration Office
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
ZIEMER v. VANDERBURGH COUNTY, INDIANA et al
as 3:2007cv00179
Plaintiff:
EDWARD T. ZIEMER
Defendant:
VANDERBURGH COUNTY, INDIANA, VANDERBURGH COUNTY SHERIFF, LEVI THENE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Taylor v. Yalobusha County, Mississippi et al
as 3:2007cv00160
Plaintiff:
Robert Taylor, Jr.
Defendant:
Yalobusha County, Mississippi, Steven Shuffield, Jermaine Gooch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Burke v. El Cajon City of et al
as 3:2007cv01618
Plaintiff:
Nancy Burke
Defendant:
El Cajon City of, William Robert Taylor and DOES 1-50
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hoyle v. Baeppler, et al
as 07-3937
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MALCOLM HOYLE
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW M. BAEPPLER and ROBERT TAYLOR
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2007cv00564
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
