Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Howell v. Leahy, et al
as 23-1995
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS L. HOWELL
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN LEAHY, Mayor of Lowell, SOKHARY CHAU, Mayor of Lowell, RICHARD CESARZ, Lowell Police Officer and others
Defendant:
WILLIAM SAMARAS, City of Council, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LOWELL, MA and others
Howell v. Leahy, et al
as 23-1647
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS L. HOWELL
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN LEAHY, Mayor of Lowell, SOKHARY CHAU, Mayor of Lowell, RICHARD CESARZ, Lowell Police Officer and others
Defendant:
WILLIAM SAMARAS, City of Council, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LOWELL, MA and others
Howell v. Lowell Regional Transit Authority
as 23-1514
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS L. HOWELL
Defendant / Appellee:
LOWELL REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Jones v. Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority
as 22-1569
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL M. JONES
Defendant / Appellee:
MONTACHUSETTS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Howell v. Lowell Regional Transit Authority
as 1:2022cv11027
Plaintiff:
Curtis Howell
Defendant:
Lowell Regional Transit Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-1234
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Jones v. Montachusett Regional Transit Authority
as 1:2020cv12076
Plaintiff:
Paul Jones
Defendant:
Montachusett Regional Transit Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bruce et al v. Worcester Regional Transit Authority et al
as 4:2018cv40037
Plaintiff:
Christopher Bruce and Amalgamated Transit Union
Defendant:
Worcester Regional Transit Authority, Central Mass Transit Management, Inc., David Trabucco and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv10273
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1218 (2) Americans with Disabilities 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.
