Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv00966
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv00965
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Welch v. Federal Express Corporation
as 3:2026cv06105
Plaintiff:
Keith Welch
Defendant:
Federal Express Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Jordan v. Smith et al
as 1:2026cv00458
Plaintiff:
Jerome Jordan
Defendant:
FNU Smith, FNU Strong, FNU Goodall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Maghoney v. Promotion in Motion, Inc. et al
as 3:2026cv05235
Plaintiff:
Tyler Maghoney
Defendant:
Promotion in Motion, Inc. and Welch Foods Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bw Diversity -Breach of Warranty
Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Dana Nessel, et al
as 26-1801
Plaintiff:
CHRISTIAN HEALTHCARE CENTERS, INC.
Defendant:
DANA NESSEL, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Michigan, JOHN E. JOHNSON, JR., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Michigan Deptartment of Civil Rights, LUKE R. LONDO, in his official capacity as member of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and others
Welch v. Hubbard
as 9:2026cv03949
Petitioner:
David James Welch
Respondent:
Warden Fredderick Hubbard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 26-1787
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Welch v. Zamora et al
as 2:2026cv13101
Plaintiff:
Terry Lee Welch, Jr.
Defendant:
Hum M. Zamora, K. Day and John Doe
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv02513
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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.
