Cases 1 - 10 of 15
MEADOWS v. PELOSI et al
as 1:2021cv03217
Plaintiff:
MARK MEADOWS
Defendant:
NANCY PELOSI, BENNIE G. THOMPSON, ELIZABETH L. CHENEY and others
Intervenor:
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., THE ASSOCIATED PRESS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv09784
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv06321
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00863
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12132
ODEMNS v. MURDOCH FAMILY TRUST et al
as 1:2016cv00798
Plaintiff:
GEORGE LEE ODEMNS, III
Defendant:
MURDOCH FAMILY TRUST, 21ST CENTURY FOX, FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv00176
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Sorokin v. Dow Jones & Company Inc.
as 12-2126
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Julia Sorokin and Louis A. Bravo
Defendant - Appellee:
Dow Jones & Company Inc., Martin Schwimmer, Attorney and Wall Street Journal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv11141
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2011cv03410
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Sorokin et al v. Dow Jones & Company Inc. et al
as 1:2011cv00839
Plaintiff:
Julia Sorokin and Louis A. Bravo
Defendant:
Dow Jones & Company Inc. , Martin Schwimmer and Wall Street Journal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
