Cases 1 - 10 of 154
White v. City of Memphis, TN et al
as 2:2024cv02340
Plaintiff:
Mark White, Sr. doing business as Tokyo Nights
Defendant:
City of Memphis, TN and Paul Young
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Fontana, Sr. v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00155
Plaintiff:
Jimmy L. Fontana, Sr.
Defendant:
William Lee and David B Rousch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00023
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01257
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Caldwell, Sr. v. Roberts et al
as 3:2023cv01112
Plaintiff:
Dr. Keith R. Caldwell, Sr.
Defendant:
John Roberts, William H. Pryor, Jr., Mary S. Scriven and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jackson v. Bing et al
as 3:2023cv01038
Plaintiff:
Eric Todd Jackson
Defendant:
Christy Arwood Bing, Edward E. DeWerff, John W. Carrey, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hopson v. GPM Investments, LLC
as 2:2023cv00105
Plaintiff:
Timothy Hopson, Sr.
Defendant:
GPM Investments LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00072
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hopson v. GPM Investments LLC
as 2:2023cv00036
Plaintiff:
Timothy Hopson, Sr.
Defendant:
GPM Investments LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Jackson Sr. v. Hamilton County Tennessee et al
as 1:2023cv00046
Plaintiff:
Abraham Jackson Sr.
Defendant:
Hamilton County Tennessee, Hamilton County Sheriff Austin Garrett, QCHC of Tennessee, PLLC 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.
