Federal Cases, Dockets, and Filings From U.S. District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal
Cases 5,531 - 5,540
Chang v. Burns-Coffin Ins. and Financial Services, Inc.
as 2:2026cv02546
Plaintiff:
Calvin Chang
Defendant:
Jared Burns-Coffin Insurance and Financial Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2026cv01968
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Mitchell v. Mack
as 1:2026cv00289
Plaintiff:
Virgil Mitchell
Defendant:
Huey Hoss Mack
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Mitchell v. Wise
as 1:2026cv00291
Plaintiff:
Virgil Mitchell
Defendant:
Jody Wise
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hart v. Shatford Law et al
as 3:2026cv07580
Plaintiff:
Eugene Hart, Jr.
Defendant:
Shatford Law, Aaron Cautch, Troy Hansen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv01294
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv05139
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv05146
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv05168
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv05170
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
