Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Kirkpatrick v. Williams
as 1:2019cv00025
Plaintiff:
Billy William Kirkpatrick
Defendant:
Nicholas Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Spoores v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2017cv00890
Plaintiff:
Nicholas William Spoores
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Jon Misewicz, et al v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
as 14-5053
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JON MISEWICZ, MICHAEL ALBERSON, JR., MARTINAS ANDREWS and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Jon Misewicz, et al v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
as 14-5052
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL ALBERSON, JR., MARTINAS ANDREWS, MYRON D. APPLEWHITE and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Robert Shreve, et al v. Franklin County Ohio, et al
as 13-3119
Plaintiff:
ROBERT SHREVE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DAWN FIORE-BRUNO, Individually and MICHAEL WORLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL REED, Individually
Defendant - Appellee:
FRANKLIN COUNTY OHIO, MARK BARRETT, Individually and in his official capacity (Franklin County Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy, Corrections), STEPHAN L. MARTIN, Individually and others
Worley et al v. Franklin County, Ohio et al
as 2:2011cv00415
Plaintiff:
Michael Worley , Robert Shreve and Frankie Mosley
Defendant:
Franklin County, Ohio, Jim Karnes, Mark Barrett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shreve et al v. Franklin County Ohio et al
as 2:2010cv00644
Plaintiff:
Robert Shreve , Michael Reed and Dawn Fiore-Bruno
Defendant:
Franklin County Ohio, Sheriff Franklin County, Mark Barrett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2009cv00826
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
