Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Butler v. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority et al
as 3:2024cv00265
Plaintiff:
Constance A. Butler
Defendant:
Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority and Steven Nesmith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6496
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Lafonda Page v. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority
as 21-2372
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LAFONDA PAGE
Defendant / Appellee:
RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
Page v. Richmond Redevelopment And Housing Authority
as 3:2021cv00462
Plaintiff:
Lafonda Page
Defendant:
Richmond Redevelopment And Housing Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ramadan v. Richmond Redevelopment And Housing Authority et al
as 3:2019cv00166
Defendant:
Sylvia Cosby Jones, Ms. M. Hicks, Carol Jones Gilbert and others
Plaintiff:
Al-Tariq R. Ramadan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Akil Bey v. RRHA
as 14-1750
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AKIL RASHIDI BEY, Ex rel Aikdo Graves, Moorish American Moslem National, in full life, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice, Tscnocmoco Territory
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
Defendant:
WILLITTE C. WILLIAMS, in her official and personal capacity, TAMMY L. GRUBB, in her official and personal capacity, CALANDRA M. TROTTER, in her official and personal capacity and others
Bey v. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, et al
as 3:2013cv00464
Plaintiff:
Akil Rashidi Bey
Defendant:
Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Walden v. Richmond Redevelopement and Housing Authority et al
as 3:2010cv00854
Plaintiff:
Ronald W. Walden, Jr.
Defendant:
Richmond Redevelopement and Housing Authority and Richmond Coliseum Joint Venture, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
