Cases 11 - 20 of 6,566
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00546
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12131 Americans with Disabilities Act
Jones v. Rutherford County et al
as 3:2024cv00264
Plaintiff:
Leo Lamont Jones
Defendant:
Rutherford County and James Elliot
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Reguli et al v. Hetzel et al
as 3:2024cv00541
Plaintiff:
Connie Reguli and Wendy Hancock
Defendant:
Tracy Hetzel, Estate of Kimberly Helper, Mary Katherine Evins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00543
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #1 (JRC) et al v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00540
Plaintiff:
John Doe #1 (JRC), John Doe #2 (TJC), John Doe #3 (RKF) and others
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lawson et al v. Hargett et al
as 3:2024cv00538
Plaintiff:
Phillip Lawson, Gabe Hart, Victor Ashe and others
Defendant:
Tre Hargett, Mark Goins, Steven R. Finney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00539
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Dowlen v. The City of Springfield, Tennessee et al
as 3:2024cv00522
Plaintiff:
Kierra Lachelle Dowlen
Defendant:
The City of Springfield, Tennessee and John Does 1-7
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00526
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00523
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.