Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv00119
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2018cv60004
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv06282
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv04341
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv02207
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Timothy Whiting v. Stan Henry, et al
as 11-56246
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TIMOTHY LEWIS WHITING
Defendant - Appellee:
STAN HENRY, former Chief of Police, in his individual capacity as a peace officer with the Cathedral City Police Department, STANLEY SNIFF, individually as Sheriff of Riverside County, DAVID G. DOMINGUEZ, former Chief of Police, in his individual capacity as a peace officer with the Palm Springs Police Department and others
Timothy Lewis Whiting v. Stan Henry et al
as 5:2011cv00552
Defendant:
Adams, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Lewis Whiting
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2008cv05068
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
BEAKY et al v. COUNTY OF BUCKS et al
as 2:2008cv01251
Plaintiff:
MICHELLE MURRAY BEAKY and CONSTANCE MURRAY D' ABRUZZO
Defendant:
COUNTY OF BUCKS, JOSEPH P. CAMPBELL, RICHARD KUNTZ and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2008cv00552
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
