Cases 91 - 100 of 2,586
Anderson v. Cheatham County Sheriff's Department et al
as 3:2023cv01309
Plaintiff:
Ryan Mart Anderson
Defendant:
Cheatham County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Tim Binkley, Cheatham County Jail and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #011 v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv01270
Plaintiff:
John Doe #011
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #1 (DTB) et al v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00009
Plaintiff:
John Doe #1 (DTB), John Doe #2 (MAB), John Doe #3 (DJB) and others
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #013 v. Lee et al
as 1:2023cv00082
Plaintiff:
John Doe #013
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Doe #15 v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv01318
Plaintiff:
John Doe #15
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv01332
Plaintiff:
John Doe and John Doe 1332
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe v. Lee et al
as 2:2023cv00071
Plaintiff:
John Doe and John Doe 71
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Montgomery v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO (IBEW) Local 429 et al
as 3:2023cv01262
Plaintiff:
Jeremie Montgomery
Defendant:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO (IBEW) Local 429 and Conti Corp
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Doe v. Lee et al
as 2:2023cv00073
Plaintiff:
John Doe and John Doe 73
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doe #012 v. Lee et al
as 3:2023cv01316
Plaintiff:
John Doe #012
Defendant:
William Lee and David Rausch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
