Cases 21 - 30 of 31
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv01296
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00579
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Religion
FOX et al v. MCCORMICK et al
as 1:2012cv01869
Plaintiff:
ROBERT FOX, JR. , JAMES MCLAUGHLIN , FINN PETTE and others
Defendant:
ROBERT MCCORMICK, NOEL C. BORCK, PAUL O. GEHL and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
POWELL v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS et al
as 1:2012cv01384
Plaintiff:
THEODORE E. POWELL
Defendant:
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, RANDI WEINGARTEN, AL SQUIRE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
PITTS v. ARLINTON COUNTY et al
as 1:2011cv02035
Plaintiff:
RODNEY D. PITTS
Defendant:
ARLINTON COUNTY and ERIK GRABOWSKY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SCURLOCK v. LAPPINS et al
as 1:2010cv01833
Plaintiff:
ALONZO EDWARD SCURLOCK
Defendant:
HARLEY LAPPINS, J. L. NORWOOD, TERRY O'BRIEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COHEN v. HOLDER et al
as 1:2009cv02221
Plaintiff:
L. C. COHEN
Defendant:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., JOHN MORTON, HARLEY G. LAPPIN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv00716
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv00704
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
ROGERS v. PITT et al
as 1:2007cv00687
Plaintiff:
GERALD L. ROGERS
Defendant:
HARVEY LLOYD PITT, JAMES C. NEWSOME and MICHAEL J. GAINES
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
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.
