Cases 31 - 40 of 172
Westry v. Connecticut et al
as 3:2022cv00685
Plaintiff:
Eric Westry
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Ned Lamont, Jeanette Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Murphy v. Lamont
as 22-1027
Plaintiff:
Sean Murphy and Robert Barnes
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Daniel Reale
Defendant / Appellee:
Ned Lamont
Roundtree v. Lemont
as 22-1003
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Anjaknie Roundtree
Defendant / Appellee:
Ned Lemont, Governor of Connecticut/State Capitol, Catherine Vera, Department of Children and Families and Nichole Stewart, Department of Children and Families
Furst v. Malloy
as 22-730
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Joel Ira Furst
Defendant / Appellee:
Ned Lamont, Governor, State of Connecticut and William Tong, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Furst v. Obama
as 22-610
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Joel Ira Furst
Defendant / Appellee:
Ned Lamont, Governor and State of Connecticut
Defendant:
Barack Obama, President
Roundtree v. Hartford Courant et al
as 3:2022cv00414
Plaintiff:
Anjaknie Roundtree
Defendant:
Hartford Courant, Telemundonevainglaterra.com, Dailyadvent.com and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-30098
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
McKenna v. HP Incorporated et al
as 3:2022cv08016
Plaintiff:
Annette-Lynn McKenna
Defendant:
HP Incorporated, Enquire Lores, Christoph Shell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Antosh et al v. Village of Mount Pleasant et al
as 2:2022cv00117
Plaintiff:
Pamela J Antosh, Ned E. Lashley and Ned E Lashley
Defendant:
Village of Mount Pleasant, David De Groot and Village of Mount Pleasant Community Development Authority
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00027
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
