Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Boysen et al v. Peacehealth et al.
as 6:2023cv01229
Plaintiff:
Sara Boysen, Hannah Bernhardt, Alisha Carter and others
Defendant:
PeaceHealth, Liz Dunne, Doug Koekkoek and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00333
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Doe v. City of Baton Rouge et al
as 6:2021cv00314
Defendant:
Christopher Nakamoto, Shanard Carey, East Baton Rouge Parish and others
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00020
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Murphy v. Alphabet Inc.
as 6:2020cv00893
Defendant:
Alphabet Inc. and Alphabet Inc. doing business as Google+ doing business as Twitter Inc.
Plaintiff:
Thomas Robert Murphy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Wicks et al v. Auxier et al
as 3:2020cv00132
Defendant:
William Crisman, Gerhard Fiebich, Judge Ted E. Grove and others
Plaintiff:
Norman David Wicks, Sr. and Norman David Wicks, Jr.
3Rd Party Defendant:
Derek Ramsdell and his wife Ramsdell and Marc Charles Hicks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2019cv01927
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lietzke v. City of Montgomery et al
as 6:2019cv01459
Defendant:
Kevin Murphy and City of Montgomery
Plaintiff:
Bill Lietzke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Barclay v. Oregon Department of Justice et al
as 6:2019cv00683
Plaintiff:
Peter Barclay
Defendant:
Daniel R. Murphy, Glen D. Baisinger and Oregon Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Murphy v. City of Hood River
as 3:2018cv01844
Defendant:
City of Hood River, Pulido, Martin and others
Plaintiff:
James Michael Murphy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
