Cases 1 - 10 of 120
SMITH v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
as 1:2024cv01483
Plaintiff:
JAMIE DAVIS SMITH
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
MATHIS et al v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION et al
as 1:2024cv01312
Plaintiff:
W. MATHIS and K. DAVIS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 794 Rehabilitation Act
SNOWDEN v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al
as 1:2024cv00899
Plaintiff:
EMMANUEL SNOWDEN
Defendant:
THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, METRO TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DAVIS # 892 and others
DAVIS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2024cv00703
Plaintiff:
CRYSTAL DAVIS
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EMMANUEL AGBARA, INNOCENT OPARA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
SMITH v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
as 1:2024cv00343
Plaintiff:
JAMIE DAVIS SMITH
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00130
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03769
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03103
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SMITH v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
as 1:2023cv02062
Plaintiff:
JAMIE DAVIS SMITH
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
DAVIS v. U.S. GOVERNMENT
as 1:2023cv00087
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL L. DABIS and MICHAEL L. DAVIS
Defendant:
U.S. GOVERNMENT
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.
