District Court Cases in Oklahoma
Cases 21 - 30 of 52,953
Scott et al v. Clorox Company, The
as 4:2024cv00202
Plaintiff:
Martin Scott and Cindi Scott
Defendant:
Clorox Company, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability
Butler et al v. Chickasaw Nation Medical Center et al
as 6:2024cv00153
Plaintiff:
Donisha Butler
Defendant:
Chickasaw Nation Medical Center, Indian Health Services and Spring Maddox
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00440
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Saldivar et al v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2024cv00442
Plaintiff:
Daniel Saldivar, Michael Wolfe, Zurrell Hernandez and others
Defendant:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Scott Crow, John or Jane Doe 1-4 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00197
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Colliver v. Pettigrew
as 4:2024cv00198
Petitioner:
Erich Dwayne Colliver
Respondent:
Luke Pettigrew
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moss v. Social Security Administration
as 6:2024cv00152
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Don Moss
Defendant:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Holz v. LNU et al
as 5:2024cv00438
Plaintiff:
Timothy Edward Holz
Defendant:
FNU LNU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Holz v. Katterhenry
as 5:2024cv00436
Plaintiff:
Timothy Edward Holz
Defendant:
Dan Katterhenry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Holz v. Linsay
as 5:2024cv00437
Plaintiff:
Timothy Edward Holz
Defendant:
Terry Linsay
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
