Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Fields v. Duncan, et al
as 1:2023cv01078
Plaintiff:
SANDRINA FIELDS
Defendant:
TERRANCE DUNCAN and City of Maple Heights, Ohio
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Bruce v. City of Maple Heights, Ohio
as 1:2023cv00371
Plaintiff:
Douglas Bruce
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights, Ohio
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Violation 5th & 8th Amendme
Legg v. City of Maple Heights et al
as 1:2020cv02452
Plaintiff:
Amanda Legg
Defendant:
Rebecca Kaulbach, City of Maple Heights and Christian Powell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
City of Maple Heights, Ohio v. NetFlix, Inc., et al.
as 1:2020cv01872
Plaintiff:
City of Maple Heights, Ohio
Defendant:
Hulu, LLC and NetFlix, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Crosby v. City of Maple Heights et al
as 1:2017cv01822
Plaintiff:
Jana Crosby
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights and Frank Consolo
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Bell v. City of Maple Heights et al
as 1:2017cv01226
Plaintiff:
Lawayne Bell
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights , Maple Heights Police Department , John C. Popielarczyk and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Williams v. City of Maple Heights et al
as 1:2017cv01069
Plaintiff:
Aaron Williams
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights , Michael Russo , Derek Jividen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mannino v. City of Maple Heights et al
as 1:2011cv01721
Plaintiff:
Sandra L Mannino
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights, Jeffrey A Lansky, Edward Urbanek and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Ohio Citizen Action et al v. City of Maple Heights
as 1:2010cv02294
Plaintiff:
Ohio Citizen Action and Carl Gaglione
Defendant:
City of Maple Heights
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Abram Williams v. City of Maple Heights, et al
as 10-4203
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ABRAM WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS and ALEXANDER CASEY
Defendant:
MARK COOLEY, et al.
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.
