Cases 21 - 29 of 29
Thomas Harris v. Aramark Food Service Distrib.
as 10-7066
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Thomas Edward Harris, also known as Abdul Malik
Defendant - Appellee:
Aramark Food Service Distributors
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv01059
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SMITH-BEY v. CCA/CTF et al
as 1:2009cv00702
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE H. SMITH-BEY
Defendant:
CCA/CTF, ARAMARK FOOD CORP, D. PEACE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
REED v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2009cv00265
Plaintiff:
VINCENT REED
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
HELM et al v. CRIST et al
as 1:2008cv01996
Plaintiff:
MCARTHRU HELM, MICHAEL HUTCHISON, WILLIAM EDWARDS and others
Defendant:
CHARLIE CRIST, WALTER MCNEIL, ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, INCORPORATED and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Phillip Cason v. DC Department of Corrections, et al
as 08-7129
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Phillip Thomas Cason
Defendant - Appellee:
DC Department of Corrections, Corrections Corporation of America, CCA, Contracted Medical Staff of the Department of Corrections and others
PEARSON v. UNITY HEALTH CARE INC. et al
as 1:2008cv01753
Plaintiff:
DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON
Defendant:
UNITY HEALTH CARE INC., ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, INCORPORATED, CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv02120
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 99-5125
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Terminated Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Amicus Curiae For Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
