Cases 1 - 10 of 837
Middlebrooks v. Kasmar et al
as 1:2024cv04257
Plaintiff:
Lillie M. Middlebrooks
Defendant:
Scott Kasmar, Kay Ann King and Bryan Thomas Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Thomas v. Jones et al
as 1:2024cv04198
Plaintiff:
Keith Thomas
Defendant:
Cassandra Jones, John Mays and City of Union City
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03177
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00241
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04079
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00161
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Philipps v. Thomas Concrete of South Carolina et al
as 4:2024cv00203
Plaintiff:
Michael Albert Philipps
Defendant:
William L. Kidd and Thomas Concrete of South Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Majeroni v. Chatham County Board of Elections et al
as 4:2024cv00141
Defendant:
Andrew Nizwantowski, Robert Santoro, Chatham County Board of Elections and others
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Majeroni
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03313
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Middlebrooks v. Johnson et al
as 4:2024cv00164
Plaintiff:
Lillie M. Middlebrooks
Defendant:
Judge Bryan Thomas Johnson and Leigh Patterson
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.
