Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Schmidt et al v. City of Richmond et al
as 3:2022cv00404
Plaintiff:
Charles H. Schmidt, Jimmie Lee Jarvis, Kristopher C. Goad and others
Defendant:
City of Richmond, William C. Smith, William Blackwell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Mays et al v. The Cabell County Board of Education et al
as 3:2022cv00085
Plaintiff:
Herman Mays, Jr., C. M., Elizabeth Mays and others
Defendant:
The Cabell County Board of Education, Ryan Saxe and Daniel Gleason
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00570
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Johnson et al v. City of Richmond, Virginia et al
as 3:2017cv00553
Plaintiff:
Bravette Johnson and Curtis Williams
Defendant:
City of Richmond, Virginia, Jason Norton, Bryan T. Norwood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ensley et al v. City of Richmond, Virginia et al
as 3:2017cv00024
Plaintiff:
Wilber Ensley , Covey Andrews , Shamar Archer and others
Defendant:
City of Richmond, Virginia , Jason Norton , Bryan T. Norwood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Graham v. Montgomery County Circuit Court et al
as 1:2014cv00687
Plaintiff:
Gordon A. Graham
Defendant:
Montgomery County Circuit Court, Cheryl McCally, Daniel Wortman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv01061
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003
Roy Sudduth v. Brenda Vasquez
as 09-1329
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROY SUDDUTH
Defendant - Appellee:
BRENDA VASQUEZ, CARMEN BONILLA, ROBERT C. KETTLER and others
Sudduth v. Vasquez et al
as 1:2008cv01106
Plaintiff:
Roy Sudduth
Defendant:
Brenda Vasquez, Carmen Bonilla, Robert C. Kettler and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
