Cases 81 - 90 of 86,490
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00523
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Ackerman et al v. Arkema Inc.
as 4:2024cv01588
Plaintiff:
Dorothy Ackerman, Mary Ackerman, Sylbestre Aburto and others
Defendant:
Arkema Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Brown v. Anderson County Jail
as 6:2024cv00156
Plaintiff:
Reginald Brown
Defendant:
Anderson County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
E.M., by his guardian and next friend, Madeline Grochowski et al v. Brown et al
as 7:2024cv00288
Defendant:
Robin Brown, Robin Freeman and Crystal Brake
Plaintiff:
E.M., by his guardian and next friend, Madeline Grochowski, K.M., by her guardian and next friend, Madeline Grochowski, H.M., by her guardian and next friend, Madeline Grochowski and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hueston v. Brown et al
as 5:2024cv00081
Petitioner:
David E. Hueston
Respondent:
R. Brown and Dr. McCoy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Brown, Robert v. State of Wisconsin
as 3:2024cv00281
Petitioner:
Robert L. Brown
Respondent:
State of Wisconsin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
El v. Chun
as 24-1142
Defendant:
BLAIR, JOSEPH FUCITO, Sergeant PETER LITRA, Shield #1197 and others
Plaintiff:
SAGE EL
Cynthia Brown, et al v. David Yost
as 24-3354
Plaintiff:
CYNTHIA BROWN, CARLOS BUFORD and JENNY SUE ROWE
Defendant:
DAVID YOST, In his Official Capacity as Ohio Attorney General
United States v. Montez Brown
as 24-1892
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Montez Brown, also known as Tez Blood, also known as Montez Eugene Brown
United States of America v. Brown
as 24-2688
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
NATHAN CODY BROWN
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.
