Cases 31 - 40 of 71
Vivian Anderson v. City of Danville
as 15-1946
Plaintiff - Appellant:
VIVIAN A. ANDERSON
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF DANVILLE, a Municipal Corporation, DANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE DAVID WHITLEY, and unknown John Doe(s) and others
Vivian Anderson v. City of Danville
as 15-1946
Plaintiff / Appellant:
VIVIAN A. ANDERSON
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF DANVILLE, a Municipal Corporation, DANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE DAVID WHITLEY, and unknown John Doe(s) and others
Anderson v. City of Danville et al
as 2:2015cv00296
Plaintiff:
Vivian A. Anderson
Defendant:
City of Danville, Danville Police Dept., Detective David Whitley, and unknown John Doe(s) and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Niton et al v. Village of Oak Lawn et al
as 1:2015cv05750
Plaintiff:
Piotr Niton and Anna Niton
Defendant:
Village of Oak Lawn , Oak Lawn Police Officer James S Mitchell, Star #2232 , Oak Lawn Police Officer Timothy A. Thomas, Star #2219 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robert Holt v. Susan Stroman
as 15-1377
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT B. HOLT, individually and DORIS HOLT, Estate of Doris Holt by and through Robert B. Holt, sole beneficiary
Defendant - Appellee:
SUSAN STROMAN, PRINCESS HODGES, SUSAN TILLMAN and others
Defendant:
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, BRENDA B. HUGHES, individually and in her official capacity as Administrator with UniHealth and others
CAMM v. FAITH et al
as 4:2014cv00123
Defendant:
JAMES BIDDLE, SEAN CLEMONS, RODNEY ENGLERT and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID R. CAMM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Gillette et al v. Malheur County et al
as 2:2014cv01542
Defendant:
Dr. Bill Barton, 6 Unknown Jane Does, 6 Unknown John Does and others
Plaintiff:
Kendra Gillette, Sweeney Gillette and Richard Hoyt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Morris & Morris, PSC, et al v. Gayle Slaughter, et al
as 14-5501
Plaintiff:
KEITH RENE GUY, SR., on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, BARRY LYNN DEMUS, JR., CHRISTOPHER ANDRE WILLIAMS and others
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JOHN DOE IV #1-#37, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated, but as yet unknown, John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class, JANE DOE IV #1- #6, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated, but as yet unknown, John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class, JOHN DOE II #1-33 (EXCEPTING #5, 9, 21, 26 & 27), on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated, but as yet unknown, John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MORRIS & MORRIS P.S.C.
Defendant - Appellee:
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, fka The City Of Lexington, H. FOSTER PETTIT, Individually and official capacity, JAMES AMATO and others
Keith Guy, Sr., et al v. LFUCG, et al
as 14-5496
Plaintiff:
KEITH RENE GUY, SR., on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, BARRY LYNN DEMUS, JR., CHRISTOPHER ANDRE WILLIAMS and others
Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
JOHN DOE IV #1-#37, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated, but as yet unknown, John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class, JANE DOE IV #1- #6, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated, but as yet unknown, John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class, JOHN DOE II #1-33 (EXCEPTING #5, 9, 21, 26 & 27), on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated, but as yet unknown, John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class and others
Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
REX ROE #48, #62, #91, #97, #103, On behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, fka The City Of Lexington, H. FOSTER PETTIT, in official and individual capacity, JAMES AMATO, Individually and others
Murchison-Allman et al v. City of New York et al
as 1:2014cv02160
Plaintiff:
Joy Murchison-Allman and Terrence Allman
Defendant:
City of New York, Henry Adams and Unknown John Doe Police Officers
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.
