Cases 1 - 10 of 426
Sewell v. Maddox et al
as 2:2024cv00338
Plaintiff:
Amy Giles Sewell
Defendant:
Thomas N Maddox, City of Elba, Alabama and Harold L. Staley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00676
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00266
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12102 Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00538
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
East v. Alabama State Board of Pharmacy et al
as 2:2024cv00369
Plaintiff:
Billy Flint East
Defendant:
Alabama State Board of Pharmacy, Donna Conyers Yeatman, James S Ward and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00154
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00138
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act
Williams v. Nexstar Media Group et al
as 1:2024cv00048
Plaintiff:
Wendy M. Williams
Defendant:
Nexstar Media Group, Perry A. Sooks, Geoff Armstrong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Meadows et al v. Leeds, City of et al
as 2:2023cv01774
Plaintiff:
Frank Meadows and Quinton Leroy Cook, Jr
Defendant:
Leeds, City of, Thomas William McDonald, McWhorter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Adams v. Judge Alvis et al
as 2:2023cv01638
Plaintiff:
Thomas E Adams, Jr
Defendant:
Judge Alvis and Jefferson County
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.
