District of Columbia Torts - Injury Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 85
KOCH v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP.
as 1:2011cv02311
Plaintiff:
ROBERT KOCH
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP.
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
VEGA et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2010cv02149
Plaintiff:
BRIANNA VEGA and IESHA GILL
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ALLEN v. SMITH
as 1:2010cv00767
Plaintiff:
STANLEY J. ALLEN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
ESPINOSA v. MCHUGH et al
as 1:2009cv02399
Plaintiff:
ERIC ESPINOSA and ERIC ESPINOSA
Defendant:
JOHN MCHUGH and JAMARKO J. WALKER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
RILES v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al
as 1:2009cv01329
Plaintiff:
JESSE RILES
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, HOMELAND SECURITY and JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
ALLEN v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
as 1:2009cv01240
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MICHAEL ALLEN
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act
POINDEXTER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2009cv01057
Plaintiff:
WENDEL CHANNING POINDEXTER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2674 Federal Tort Claims Act
TABMAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
as 1:2009cv00880
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL TABMAN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
RILES v. GEITHNER et al
as 1:2009cv00214
Plaintiff:
JESSE RILES
Defendant:
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, JANET NAPOLITANO and JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
TABMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al
as 1:2008cv02203
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL TABMAN
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and JOHN PISTOLE
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
