Cases 41 - 50 of 253
Lawtone-Bowles v. The City of New York (NYC) et al
as 1:2021cv05620
Defendant:
The City of New York Transportation (DOT), The City of New York Police Department Traffic Agents (TEA), The City of New York (NYC) and others
Plaintiff:
Nicole Lawtone-Bowles
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bowles v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al
as 1:2021cv04922
Plaintiff:
Charles Bowles
Defendant:
W.R. Grace & Co., Julie Fasone Holder, Robert F. Cummings, Jr. and others
Bowles v. PPD, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv04874
Plaintiff:
Charles Bowles
Defendant:
Colin Hill, Joe Bress, Allen Thorpe and others
McLaurin v. Bowles et al
as 3:2021cv00717
Plaintiff:
Gregory McLaurin
Defendant:
Otero Doe, Stein Doe, Brane Blackstock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Paschal-Barros v. Quiros et al
as 3:2021cv00698
Defendant:
Craig Washington, Angel Quiros, Roger Bowles and others
Plaintiff:
Kyle L. Paschal-Barros
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Roseboro v. Faucher et al
as 3:2021cv00569
Defendant:
John Doe, Bowles, Stephen Faucher and others
Plaintiff:
Jerrell Roseboro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jordan v. Saltzmann et al
as 3:2021cv00560
Defendant:
Edward Gonzalez, Patricia Saltzmann, Scott Mueller and others
Plaintiff:
Victor Lamond Jordan, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Baltas v. Rizvani et al
as 3:2021cv00436
Defendant:
Robert Bowles, Megan Tyburski, Rollin Cook and others
Plaintiff:
Joe Baltas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hubley v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
as 6:2021cv00253
Plaintiff:
Kristin Hubley
Defendant:
AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. doing business as AMF Pin-O-Rama Lanes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Disability Rights Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Correction et al
as 3:2021cv00146
Defendant:
Connecticut Department of Correction, Angel Quiros and Roger Bowles
Plaintiff:
Disability Rights Connecticut, Inc.
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.
