Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Clark v. Wyandotte County Jail
as 5:2023cv03229
Petitioner:
Richard Leroy Clark, Jr.
Respondent:
Daniel Cahill and Wyandotte County Jail
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clark v. Cahill et al
as 5:2022cv03305
Plaintiff:
Richard Leroy Clark, Jr.
Defendant:
Daniel Cahill, Tonda Hill, Candice Alcaraz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cline v. Russo et al
as 5:2022cv04010
Plaintiff:
Cory Deshawn Cline
Defendant:
Anthony R. Russo, Daniel Cahill, Eric Ibanez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Cline v. Kansas, State of et al
as 5:2021cv03003
Defendant:
Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas, John Doe (6), Lois Malin and others
Plaintiff:
Cory Deshawn Cline
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kiewel v. City of Fridley et al
as 0:2020cv01952
Defendant:
Daniel Cahill and City of Fridley
Plaintiff:
James Douglas Kiewel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Gerber v. Cahill et al
as 3:2018cv04461
Defendant:
Daniel Cahill and County of Sonoma
Plaintiff:
Clint Gerber
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Acosta v. Finishing Professionals, LLC et al
as 1:2018cv00978
Plaintiff:
R. Alexander Acosta
Defendant:
Finishing Professionals, LLC, Daniel Cahill and Finishing Professionals 401 (k) Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1362
Cahill v. Dart et al
as 1:2013cv00361
Plaintiff:
Daniel Cahill
Defendant:
Thomas Dart , C. Martinez , E.N. Nieves and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hemphill v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2011cv02160
Plaintiff:
Michael Hemphill
Defendant:
The City of New York, Daniel Cahill, Mark Kraljevic and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MAYS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY et al
as 2:2010cv02905
Plaintiff:
TYRONE MAYS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY and DANIEL CAHILL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
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.
