Cases 11 - 20 of 53
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00185
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Chaney v. City of Norfolk
as 2:2021cv00182
Defendant:
The City of Norfolk, Virginia
Plaintiff:
Dmika S. Chaney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00138
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lacey v. City of Norfolk, Virginia et al
as 1:2020cv01427
Defendant:
Jesse Amos, City of Norfolk, Virginia and Norfolk Police Department
Plaintiff:
Michael Eugene Lacey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lacey v. City of Norfolk, Virginia
as 1:2020cv01370
Plaintiff:
Michael Eugene Lacey
Defendant:
City of Norfolk, Virginia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mills v. City Of Norfolk, Virginia
as 2:2020cv00521
Defendant:
Virginia City Of Norfolk and City of Norfolk, Virginia
Plaintiff:
Rodney Mills
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Ainsworth v. Schaefer et al
as 2:2019cv00613
Defendant:
The Honorable Judge Jerome James, Commander Law, The Honorable Judge David W. Lannetti and others
Plaintiff:
Kelly L. Ainsworth
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Whitley v. City Of Norfolk
as 2:2019cv00581
Plaintiff:
Tori R. Whitley
Defendant:
The City of Norfolk, Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00458
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
City of Norfolk, Virginia et al v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
as 2:2019cv00436
Plaintiff:
City of Norfolk, Virginia and Norfolk City Council
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Virginia, Gregory D. Underwood, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Norfolk and Mark R. Herring, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia
Intervenor:
Ronald M. Green and Roy L. Perry-Bey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
