Cases 151 - 160 of 9,801
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03842
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Shaw v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2024cv01641
Plaintiff:
Michael Shaw
Defendant:
3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.
AZAR EL v. CABARRUS COUNTY et al
as 1:2024cv00362
Petitioner:
RASHAUD HUSSEIN AZAR EL doing business as JERIMY LOVE
Respondent:
CABARRUS COUNTY, CABARRUS COUNTY JAIL, MIKE DOWNS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
RIVAZ v. MCNEIL et al
as 5:2024cv00083
Plaintiff:
JARREL DANIEL RIVAZ
Defendant:
RAYMOND MCNEIL, JOSEPH HUTCHISON and KRISTIAN SHAW
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv01570
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Cromartie v. Reams et al
as 5:2024ct03098
Plaintiff:
Christopher D. Cromartie, Jr.
Defendant:
Ashston Reams, Susan Addams, Marcus Houis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shaw v. Dermatology Realm et al
as 2:2024cv02271
Plaintiff:
Tekeva Shaw
Defendant:
Dermatology Realm, Clarx Big Country Dermatology, Memphis Dermatology and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Shaw v. Raymond's Auto Repair
as 2:2024cv02270
Plaintiff:
Tekeva Shaw
Defendant:
Raymond's Auto Repair
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Shaw v. Dental Practice of Cordova et al
as 2:2024cv02268
Plaintiff:
Tekeva Shaw
Defendant:
Dental Practice of Cordova, Mid-South Oral Surgery, Christ Community Broad Dental and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MCCANN v. PRIME CARE et al
as 3:2024cv00086
Plaintiff:
LONNIE MCCANN
Defendant:
PRIME CARE, CHRISTIAN SMITH, MR. DECALVISH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
