Cases 31 - 40 of 1,551
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00012
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Bondarenko v. City of Bridgeton et al
as 4:2024cv00137
Plaintiff:
Vlad Bondarenko
Defendant:
City of Bridgeton, Bridgeton Police Department, Officer Unknown Baver and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1132
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Husbands v. Rowland et al
as 1:2024cv01003
Plaintiff:
Christopher Husbands
Defendant:
Shelly Rowland, Sabrina Williams, Scott Harwell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
v. McGee et al
as 0:2024cv00103
Defendant:
Michael McGee, Boyd Beccue, William Chandler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rhodes v. McGee et al
as 0:2024cv00104
Plaintiff:
Thomas Rhodes
Defendant:
Michael McGee, Boyd Beccue, William Chandler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Sutter & Gillham PLLC, et al v. Judy Henry, et al
as 24-1071
Plaintiff:
Sutter & Gillham PLLC, Luther Oneal Sutter and Lucien R. Gillham
Defendant:
Judy Simmons Henry, Jacob Post Fair, Scott A. Irby and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00022
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 American with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00003
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Tashonda Troupe v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al
as 24-1036
Plaintiff:
Tashonda Troupe, individually and, on behalf of Lamar Catchings, deceased
Defendant:
Anthony Young, in his individual capacity, St. Louis County, Missouri, Julia Murphy, in her indivdual and offical capacities and others
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.
