District of Columbia Forfeiture / Penalty Cases
Cases 51 - 60 of 190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TRUSTY CAPITAL INC.
as 1:2007mc00054
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
TRUSTY CAPITAL INC.
Cause Of Action: Appointment of Receiver
WHITE v. CUMMINGS
as 1:2007mc00049
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM D WHITE
Defendant:
ASHLEY CUMMINGS
Cause Of Action: Registration of Foreign Judgment
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. LIBBY
as 1:2007mc00050
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
I. LEWIS LIBBY
Movant:
DAVID E. SANGER
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2007mc00044
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
GONZALES DIGGS
Cause Of Action: MS:NoticeR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEGGETT
as 1:2007mc00043
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
DAVID LEGGETT
Cause Of Action: MS:NoticeR
LONG v. TRIAD HOSPITALS INC. et al
as 1:2007mc00035
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND LONG
Defendant:
TRIAD HOSPITALS INC., QUORUM HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, NORTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
CURTIS et al v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES
as 1:2007mc00036
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM CURTIS
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES
Movant:
DEVON BROWN
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. BALL
as 1:2007mc00034
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ANTWUAN BALL
Movant:
EDGEWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
as 1:2007mc00023
Petitioner:
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE and UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Respondent:
M.F. and M.F.
Cause Of Action: MS:NoticeR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PROSPERITAS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LP
as 1:2007mc00033
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
PROSPERITAS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LP
Cause Of Action: Appointment of Receiver
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.
