Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00103
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv08533
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1401
Lipford v. City of Chicago et al
as 1:2015cv06988
Plaintiff:
Michael Lipford
Defendant:
City of Chicago, G. W. Dailey, L. F. Goff and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
A.B. et al v. Holliman et al
as 1:2014cv07897
Plaintiff:
A. B. , R. B. and Rochelle Vermeulen
Defendant:
Carolyn Holliman, Clara Yanes, Alexis Carlisle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gay-Straight Alliance of Munster High School et al v. School Town of Munster The et al
as 1:2014cv00172
Plaintiff:
Gay-Straight Alliance of Munster High School , Destiny Sabo and R. B.
Defendant:
School Town of Munster The and Principal of Munster High School
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Camacho v. City of Chicago et al
as 1:2012cv03163
Plaintiff:
Ricardo Camacho
Defendant:
City of Chicago, R. Bell and R B Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Douglas Davis v. Sharon Boatman, et al
as 12-1957
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DOUGLAS W. DAVIS
Defendant - Appellee:
SHARON BOATMAN, Ordering Nurse, UNKNOWN PARTY, John Doe Doctor, Jane Doe Nurse, LOUIS SHICKER, Doctor, Doctor and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv05694
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Williams v. City of Chicago, Illinois et al
as 1:2010cv03884
Plaintiff:
Darnicesa Williams
Defendant:
City of Chicago, Illinois, R. Gallas, J. H. Estrada and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Alstrom et al v. Capital Development Board
as 1:2009cv01169
Plaintiff:
John I Alstrom and R&B Enterprises
Defendant:
Capital Development Board
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
