Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01451
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03157
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Emerick v. Internal Revenue Service
as 3:2023cv00005
Plaintiff:
William Gale Emerick
Defendant:
Internal Revenue Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ross v. Ross
as 1:2021cv00464
Plaintiff:
Ronald Gale Ross
Defendant:
Ronda Rochelle Ross
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Braun et al v. City of McHenry et al
as 3:2021cv50003
Plaintiff:
Michael Braun and Jennifer Samuels
Defendant:
Officer Lorenze, City of McHenry Police Department, City of McHenry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv04367
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Mhoon v. Dart et al
as 1:2018cv00284
Plaintiff:
Gale Mhoon
Defendant:
Thomas Dart and Cook County, Illinois
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rebecca Kerlin, et al v. Chicago Board of Elections, et al
as 17-3511
Plaintiff - Appellant:
REBECCA A. KERLIN, WILLIAM B. SHIPLEY, MICHELLE GALE and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS and JAMES M. SCANLON, Individually, and as General Counsel of the Chicago Board of Elections
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv01549
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rebecca A. Kerlin et al v. Chicago Board of Elections et al
as 1:2016cv07424
Plaintiff:
Rebecca A. Kerlin , William B. Shipley , Michelle Gale and others
Movant:
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.
Defendant:
Chicago Board of Elections and James M. Scanlon
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.
