Maryland Other Statutes Cases
Cases 71 - 80 of 160
Randolph v. Holder et al
as 1:2015cv00552
Plaintiff:
Catherine Denise Randolph
Defendant:
Eric Holder, Jr. and R. Rosenstein
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2520
Escarfullet v. State of Maryland et al
as 8:2015cv00417
Plaintiff:
Ramon Escarfullet
Defendant:
State of Maryland, The Office of the Montgomery County State's Attorney and The Honorable Joseph M. Quirk
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Randolph v. Holder
as 1:2015cv00314
Plaintiff:
Catherine Denise Randolph
Defendant:
Eric Holder
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Randolph v. U.S. Attorney
as 1:2015cv00009
Plaintiff:
Catherine Denise Randolph
Defendant:
U.S. Attorney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Autovest, LLC v. Ware
as 8:2014cv04012
Plaintiff:
Autovest, LLC
Defendant:
Mia Sharlene Payne Ware
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Bracey v. Valentine et al
as 8:2014cv04010
Plaintiff:
Maxine E. Bracey
Defendant:
Tim Valentine and Diego Balcazar
Cross_claimant:
Diego Balcazar
Cross_defendant:
Maxine E. Bracey and Tim Valentine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Randolph v. United States et al
as 1:2014cv03609
Plaintiff:
Catherine Denise Randolph
Defendant:
United States and New Technology Home-Broadcasting Business
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Thana, et al v Board of License Commissioners for Charles County, Maryland et al
as 8:2014cv03481
Plaintiff:
Sutasinee Thana , Michael James Lohman and Thai Seafood & Grill, Inc.
Defendant:
Board of License Commissioners for Charles County, Maryland, Pamela Smith, Guy Black and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Randolph v. US Attorney General, et al.
as 1:2014cv03298
Plaintiff:
Catherine Denise Randolph
Defendant:
US Attorney General and New Technology
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2511
Russell v. Baltimore County
as 1:2014cv03223
Plaintiff:
Melody A. Russell
Defendant:
Baltimore County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
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.
