Cases 11 - 20 of 23
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al v. Bartolomeo et al
as 3:2022cv01373
Plaintiff:
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut and others
Defendant:
Dante Bartolomeo, William Tong and Connecticut Department of Labor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
as 3:2022cv01314
Plaintiff:
Gordon Clark
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Ned Lamont, William Tong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lewis v. Stango et al
as 3:2022cv01248
Plaintiff:
Roderick Lewis
Defendant:
Charles Stango, Corneilius Kelly, Frank Iannotti and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stewart v. Bishop et al
as 3:2022cv00783
Plaintiff:
Donna Marie Stewart
Defendant:
Renee E. Bishop, Deutsche National Bank Trust, PHH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Watson v. Connecticut, et al
as 3:2022cv00563
Plaintiff:
Granville S. Watson
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Manchester Police Dept, Manchester Probation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Beatty et al v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv00380
Plaintiff:
Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens and Karl Weissinger
Defendant:
Ned Lamont and William Tong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Pregnancy Support Center, Inc. v. Tong
as 3:2021cv01346
Plaintiff:
Pregnancy Support Center, Inc.
Defendant:
William Tong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00985
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Young et al v. Lamont et al
as 3:2021cv00474
Defendant:
Burgos, Edwards, Eagleson and others
Plaintiff:
Michael A. Young, Brian Hogan and Westly Lopes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
