Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-5002
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00924
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Not Classified By Court:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)
SHARP v. DOLAN et al
as 1:2022cv02063
Plaintiff:
DARYL SHARP
Defendant:
TIMOTHY DOLAN, CHRISTOPHE PIERRE, JOSE HORACIO GOMEZ VELASCO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
SHARP v. DOLAN et al
as 1:2022cv01616
Plaintiff:
DARYL SHARP
Defendant:
TIMOTHY DOLAN, CHRISTOPHE PIERRE, JOSE HORACIO GOMEZ VELASCO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Daryl Sharp v. Timothy Dolan, et al
as 22-7078
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Daryl Sharp, Ambassador and Representative of the Living God Jehovah
Defendant / Appellee:
Timothy J. Dolan, Archbishop of New York, Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio Vatican Embassy, Jose Horacio Gomez Velasco, Archbishop of Los Angeles, President of the USCCB and others
SHARP v. DOLAN et al
as 1:2022cv01016
Plaintiff:
DARYL SHARP
Defendant:
TIMOTHY DOLAN, CHRISTOPHE PIERRE, JOSE OSCAR VELASCO GARCIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
SHARP v. DOLAN et al
as 1:2019cv03848
Defendant:
CHARLES CHAPUT, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, DANIEL DINARDO and others
Plaintiff:
DARYL SHARP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
SHARP v. PERDUE
as 1:2019cv02393
Defendant:
SONNY PERDUE
Plaintiff:
RASHARI SHARP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
SHARPE v. FBOP et al
as 1:2019cv01015
Defendant:
FBOP and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Plaintiff:
IAN OWEN SHARPE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHARP v. DOLAN et al
as 1:2019cv00306
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHE PIERRE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, TIMOTHY DOLAN and others
Plaintiff:
DARYL SHARP
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.
