Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Lamothe v. Gallus et al
as 2:2023cv00055
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Lamothe
Defendant:
Greg Gallus, Rutland Sheriffs Department and Rutland Superior Court Clerks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lamothe v. Rutland Sheriffs Department
as 2:2023cv00029
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Lamothe
Defendant:
Rutland Sheriffs Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Lamothe v. Rutland Sheriffs Department
as 2:2023cv00030
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Lamothe
Defendant:
Rutland Sheriffs Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Jones v. Lamoille County Sheriff's Department
as 2:2023cv00020
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones
Defendant:
Lamoille County Sheriff's Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2019cv00242
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00242
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Addison County Sheriff's Department v. United States Office of Special Counsel
as 2:2018cv00143
Defendant:
United States Office of Special Counsel
Plaintiff:
Addison County Sheriff's Department
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Daniel v. Begnoche et al
as 2:2013cv00079
Plaintiff:
Paul L. Daniel
Defendant:
Brian Begnoche, Joe Thomas, Ken Tardie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wolffing et al v. McLaughlin et al
as 2:2012cv00189
Plaintiff:
Bruce A. Wolffing and Mary R. Wolffing
Defendant:
Kevin M. McLaughlin , Chittenden County Sheriff's Department and Does 1-20
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wolffing et al v. McLaughlin et al
as 1:2012cv00189
Plaintiff:
Bruce A. Wolffing and Mary R. Wolffing
Defendant:
Kevin M. McLaughlin , Chittenden County Sheriff's Department and Does 1-20
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
