Cases 1 - 10 of 387
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03119
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Minton v. City of Atlanta et al
as 1:2024cv01750
Plaintiff:
Robert Minton
Defendant:
City of Atlanta, Atlanta Police Department, Officer Balmore Cruz and others
DeVaughn v. County of Meade, et al
as 24-3050
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN
Defendant:
COUNTY OF MEADE and UNKNOWN OFFICER, Patrol Officer, Badge #180, co#60
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00113
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Barth v. Town of Waterboro, et al
as 24-1170
Plaintiff:
JOHN S. BARTH
Defendant:
TOWN OF WATERBORO, GARY LAMB, SAMUEL G. JOHNSON and others
Loper et al v. Lukis et al
as 1:2024cv20604
Plaintiff:
Council President ELIZABETH A LOPER, Alderman KEITH J BLACK, Alderman KATHLEEN M GROSS and others
Defendant:
Commissioner PATRICIA PETRONE, Ashley Lukis, Michelle Anchors and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Mead et al v. Rockford Public School District et al
as 1:2023cv01313
Plaintiff:
Dan Mead and Jennifer Mead
Defendant:
Rockford Public School District and Rockford Public Schools' Board of Education
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
DeVaughn v. Meade County, Kansas et al
as 2:2023cv02555
Plaintiff:
Michael O. DeVaughn
Defendant:
Meade County, Kansas and (fnu) (lnu)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
PETTIES v. AHMAD et al
as 2:2023cv22662
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY DEROME PETTIES
Defendant:
OFFICER AHMAD, OFFICER MEADE and OFFICER RIVERA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Xavier v. Jomo Meade
as 1:2023cv00052
Plaintiff:
Franklin Xavier
Defendant:
Jomo Meade
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
