Cases 51 - 60 of 7,796
Chelesy Eastep v. City of Nashville, TN, et al
as 24-5320
Plaintiff:
CHELESY EASTEP, as surviving spouse and next of kin of Landon Dwayne Eastep
Defendant:
CITY OF NASHVILLE, TN and FABJAN LLUKAJ, in their individual and official capacity as an officer of the Mt. Juliet Police Department
Chelesy Eastep v. City of Nashville, TN, et al
as 24-5319
Plaintiff:
CHELESY EASTEP, as surviving spouse and next of kin of Landon Dwayne Eastep
Defendant:
CITY OF NASHVILLE, TN, BRIAN MURPHY, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, STEVEN CARRICK, in their individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1118
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1119
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Kim Hodges v. Joseph Abram, et al
as 24-1292
Plaintiff:
KIM HODGES, personal representative for the estate of Michael Donte Molson
Defendant:
JOSEPH ABRAM and STEPHEN DUMOND, Detective
Kelly Blunt v. City of Roseville, MI, et al
as 24-1136
Plaintiff:
KELLY AMBER BLUNT
Defendant:
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MI, et al. and MACOMB COUNTY, MI
Dijon Townsend v. Nicole Milz, et al
as 24-1293
Plaintiff:
DIJON TOWNSEND
Defendant:
NICOLE MILZ and THE GUIDANCE CENTER
John Doe v. United States Probation Office, Eastern District o, et al
as 24-5314
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Defendant:
UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, LAWSON BURROW, Officer, AMBER WILSON, Officer and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-5122
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Clifford Frost, Jr. v. Dana Nessel
as 24-1132
Plaintiff:
CLIFFORD JAMES FROST, JR.
Defendant:
DANA NESSEL, Attorney General of the State of Michigan; in official capacity
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.
