Cases 41 - 50 of 1,390
Mawule Tepe v. USA, et al
as 23-6086
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CURTIS L. COLLIER, United States District Court Judge, KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Court Judge and others
Mawule Tepe v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al
as 23-6093
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, MARK JONES and DAKIA TAYLOR
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6097
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Whyte v. Bell et al
as 3:2023cv01321
Plaintiff:
Darrell Ricardo Whyte
Defendant:
Brenna K. Bell, Jennings H, Jones, Donna Scott and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Pigeon Forge Police Department
as 3:2023cv00435
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones
Defendant:
Pigeon Forge Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Perryville Police
as 5:2023cv00332
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones
Defendant:
Perryville Police
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Ohio State Patrol et al
as 1:2023cv00794
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones
Defendant:
Ohio State Patrol, CVG Airport Police Department and Cincinnati Highway Patrol Post 31
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Soil Friends LLC et al v. Comstock, Charter Township of et al
as 1:2023cv01267
Plaintiff:
Soil Friends LLC, Mr. Benjamin Martin, Mrs. Sarah Martin and others
Defendant:
Comstock Charter Township, Kalamazoo Area Building Authority, Ms. Jodi Stefforia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv13041
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Ragless v. Jones et al
as 1:2023cv01233
Plaintiff:
Kyle Ragless
Defendant:
Christopher Jones and Michael Olsaver
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
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.
