Cases 1 - 10 of 183
BRYSON v. PENFIELD ADDICTION MINISTRIES INC et al
as 3:2024cv00028
Plaintiff:
IVAN BRYSON
Defendant:
PENFIELD ADDICTION MINISTRIES INC, CRYSTAL PAGE, MIKE WALKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05904
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05643
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Race Discrimination
ANDROS et al v. TINSLEY et al
as 7:2023cv00135
Plaintiff:
JOHN ANDROS, JULIE ANDROS, KINGS PARKWAY, LLC D/B/A 67 MOTORS and others
Defendant:
STEPHEN TINSLEY, APRIL TINSLEY, NATIONAL INSURANCE CRIME BUREAU, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00326
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Keyton v. City of South Fulton et al
as 1:2023cv04947
Plaintiff:
Clinton M. Keyton
Defendant:
City of South Fulton and Detective Joseph King
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03597
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2023cv00089
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Williams v. Cohen et al
as 1:2023cv03045
Plaintiff:
John T Williams
Defendant:
Mark H Cohen, Steven D Grimberg, Thomas W Thrash, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00106
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
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.
