Cases 11 - 19 of 19
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2012cv02960
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2012cv01910
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
West v. Williamson et al
as 3:2012cv00776
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey West
Defendant:
Randy Williamson, John Walsh and Ronald Patton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WASMUTH, et al v. DAS, et al
as 1:2011cv01013
Plaintiff:
MARK ALLEN WASMUTH and MEREDITH PHILLIPPI WASMUTH
Defendant:
SANJIV DAS , PAUL INCE , JERRY OCHELTREE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Edward Carrington v. City of Durham
as 11-1465
Plaintiff - Appellee:
EDWARD CARRINGTON, CASEY J. CARROLL, MICHAEL P. CATALINO and others
Defendant:
STEVEN W. CHALMERS, PATRICK BAKER, RONALD HODGE and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF DURHAM, MARK GOTTLIEB, BENJAMIN HIMAN and others
Edward Carrington v. Patrick Baker
as 11-1453
Plaintiff - Appellee:
EDWARD CARRINGTON, CASEY J. CARROLL, MICHAEL P. CATALINO and others
Defendant - Appellant:
PATRICK BAKER, STEVEN W. CHALMERS, RONALD HODGE and others
Defendant:
DUKE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, RICHARD BRODHEAD and others
Isaac v. Walsh et al
as 4:2009cv00999
Plaintiff:
Bobby Isaac, Jr
Defendant:
John Walsh, Cindy Elley, Doctor Coon and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Windham v. Graham et al
as 9:2008cv01935
Plaintiff:
Edward Jamele Windham
Defendant:
Mark Graham, Todd Tucker, Kenny Boone and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
CARRINGTON et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al
as 1:2008cv00119
Plaintiff:
EDWARD CARRINGTON, CASEY J. CARROLL, MICHAEL P. CATALINO and others
Defendant:
DUKE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., RICHARD BRODHEAD and others
Cause Of Action: 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.
