Cases 11 - 20 of 237
Clarence Jackson v. State of Illinois, et al
as 24-1824
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE B. JACKSON
Defendant:
STATE OF ILLINOIS and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv50175
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners et al
as 4:2024cv00418
Plaintiff:
Khor Chin Lim
Defendant:
New York State Board of Law Examiners, City of Chicago, Illinois, Lucien Wong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03631
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners et al
as 4:2024cv00398
Plaintiff:
Khor Chin Lim
Defendant:
New York State Board of Law Examiners, City of Chicago, Illinois, Lucien Wong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Stanbridge v. Batterton et al
as 4:2024cv04061
Plaintiff:
Kevin W Stanbridge
Defendant:
T Battington, Wexford Health Sources Inc, Illinois Department of Human Services and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Seger v. Department of Human Services
as 3:2024cv01057
Petitioner:
Logan S Seger
Respondent:
State of Illinois Department of Human Services
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01785
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv50068
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00670
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
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.
