Cases 1 - 10 of 12
In re: Koplow
as 21-1638
Petitioner:
DAVID LEE KOPLOW
Respondent:
DANA WILLIAM, GERALD FABIANO, LAW FIRM OF PIERCE, DAVIS, PERRITANO and others
Appellee:
LEO ROBINSON
Sturdivent v. Chelsea Police Department et al
as 1:2020cv10732
Defendant:
District Attorney Office, Commonwealth Land and Trust, FBI and others
Plaintiff:
Katrina Sturdivent
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sturdivent v. Chelsea Police Department et al
as 1:2019cv12271
Plaintiff:
Katrina Sturdivent
Defendant:
Chelsea Trial Court, Chelsea City Hall, Manuel Gonzales and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kosta v. Masachusetts State Police
as 1:2019cv10605
Defendant:
Famingham Police, Revere Police Department, Kristen Bourdeau and others
Plaintiff:
Demetri Kosta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Latimore v. City of Chelsea et al
as 1:2017cv10817
Plaintiff:
Jason Latimore
Defendant:
City of Chelsea , Chelsea Police Department , Estate of Robert Longo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Brown v. Chelsea Police Department
as 16-2240
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JASON T. BROWN
Defendant - Appellee:
CHELSEA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brown v. Chelsea Police Department
as 1:2016cv11422
Plaintiff:
Jason T. Brown
Defendant:
Chelsea Police Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Clark v. Chelsea, City of et al
as 1:2013cv10792
Plaintiff:
Wayne Clark
Defendant:
Chelsea, City of , Chelsea Police Department, The , David K. Betz and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
Spencer v. City of Chelsea, et al
as 10-1250
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BARRY H. SPENCER, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF CHELSEA, CHELSEA POLICE DEPARTMENT, EDWARD G. CONLEY and others
Spencer v. City of Chelsea, et al
as 09-1564
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BARRY H. SPENCER, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF CHELSEA, CHELSEA POLICE DEPARTMENT, EDWARD G. CONLEY and others
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.
