Cases 21 - 30 of 51
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv00115
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Johnson v. Hice et al
as 2:2011cv00123
Plaintiff:
Samuel G. Johnson
Defendant:
Avery Hice, Joan Stuart, Kathy Henson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Worthy v. Georgia Department of Human Resources et al
as 2:2011cv00077
Plaintiff:
Robert S. Worthy
Defendant:
Georgia Department of Human Resources, Mary L. Skelton, Robert Slater and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv00051
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 10-15710
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv01565
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Mike Redford v. GA Dept. of Human Resources, et al
as 10-12275
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MIKE J. REDFORD
Defendant - Appellee:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, (In Official and Individual Capacity), OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, DELORES B. HILL, Personal Advocate (In Official and Individual Capacity) and others
Mike Redford v. Georgia Dept. of Human Res., et al
as 10-10026
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MIKE J. REDFORD
Defendant - Appellee:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, DELORES B. HILL and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv03477
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Redford v. Georgia Department of Human Resources et al
as 1:2009cv02643
Plaintiff:
Mike Redford
Defendant:
Georgia Department of Human Resources, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Delores B. Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Type:
Other Statutes
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.
