Cases 101 - 110 of 376
Mitchell et al v. Marshall et al (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG+)
as 2:2017cv00768
Defendant:
Steven T. Marshall, County of Barbour, Alabama, Alabama Administrative Office of Courts and others
Plaintiff:
Miranda M. Mitchell and D.G.M.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12181 Americans with Disabilities Act-Public Accommodations Private
Charles Johns v. Alabama Dept. of Human Res.
as 17-14610
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES KELVIN JOHNS
Defendant - Appellee:
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv01740
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-2897
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Neely v. Georgia Department of Human Resources
as 1:2017cv02980
Plaintiff:
Delores Neely
Defendant:
Georgia Department of Human Resources
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00530
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Heard v. New York Police Department et al
as 1:2017cv03866
Defendant:
Department of Human Resources, Mexicans, New York Police Department and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Soldier Heard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-11080
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
United States of America v. Mayfield et al
as 5:2017cv00239
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Danny Mayfield, Successors of Misty Mayfield, Michael Mayfield and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Rollins v. Adult Protective Services
as 17-495
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Carolyn Rollins
Defendant - Appellee:
United States Social Security Administration
Defendant:
Adult Protective Services and New York City Department of Human Resources Administration
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.
