Cases 1 - 10 of 18
McElmeel v. Bradley, et al.
as 26-1828
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL PETER MCELMEEL
Defendant:
ALEX CHRISTIAN BRADLEY, ALEX COGEN, PATRICIA W. PERLOW and others
McElmeel v. Altemus, et al.
as 26-1729
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL PETER MCELMEEL
Defendant:
MATTHEW AARON ALTEMUS, AMBER ALTEMUS, COUNTY OF LANE, Oregon and others
Ritter v. County of Lane, et al.
as 25-7640
Plaintiff:
ROBERT PATRICK RITTER
Defendant:
COUNTY OF LANE, CARL E. WILKERSON, III, Lane County Sheriff, Deputy BERTSCH and others
McElmeel v. Perlow, et al.
as 25-5758
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL PETER MCELMEEL
Defendant:
PATRICIA W. PERLOW, Lane County, OR, D.A., STEPHEN DINGLE, County Attorney, ERIK THOMAS KNAPP and others
Combs v. County of Lane, et al.
as 25-1319
Plaintiff:
TALITHA LACEY COMBS, also known as Talitha Lacey Randall
Defendant:
COUNTY OF LANE, a Public Agency and ELIZABETH RAMBO, An Individual, In Her Individual and Official Capacity as Agent for the State of Oregon
Payne v. Fulton, et al.
as 25-461
Plaintiff:
ANZHELIKA PAYNE, personal representative to the estate of Landon Jay Payne
Defendant:
ZACHERY FULTON, an individual, CONNOR WEST SANTINI, an individual, CITY OF EUGENE, a municipal corporation and others
Brown v. County of Lane, et al.
as 24-4000
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY BROWN
Defendant:
COUNTY OF LANE, ALFREDO VELEZ, Personally, NATHAN L. GENT, Personally and others
Combs v. County of Lane et al
as 6:2024cv01016
Defendant:
County of Lane and Elizabeth Rambo
Plaintiff:
Talitha Lacey Combs and Talitha Lacey Randall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. County of Lane
as 24-855
Plaintiff:
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AT&T Mobility
Defendant:
COUNTY OF LANE, Oregon
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2023cv01556
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
