Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00145
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Robert Bennett v. Shasta County, et al
as 17-16808
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT BENNETT
Defendant - Appellee:
SHASTA COUNTY, RICHARD KUHNS, TOM BOSENKO, Sheriff and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv01330
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Bennett v. County of Shasta, et al
as 2:2015cv01764
Defendant:
County of Shasta, Richard Kuhns, Tom Bosenko and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Bennett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2015cv00974
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Trower v. Bennett et al
as 6:2013cv00154
Plaintiff:
J. Scot Trower
Defendant:
Robert Bennett , Jason Harjo , Michael Winap and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Barnett et al v. Wasem et al
as 4:2012cv00373
Plaintiff:
Mary Lee Barnett and Norman Robert Bennett
Defendant:
Marc Wasem and St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Board of Police Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shirley v. South Carolina Family Court et al
as 9:2010cv02632
Plaintiff:
Grant Douglas Shirley
Defendant:
South Carolina Family Court, Robert Bennett and Richard Peacock
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00245
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
The Estate of Roy C. Ashford et al v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2009cv00262
Plaintiff:
The Estate of Roy C. Ashford and Terell Ashford
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Corrections, Christopher Epps, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi and others
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.
