Cases 41 - 50 of 149,616
Alford v. Dexeus et al
as 1:2024cv06695
Defendant:
Director of F.B.I. Christopher Wray, Doctor Daniel Patrick Dexeus, Lead Nurse and others
Plaintiff:
Dennis Alford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
McKenzie v. October et al
as 1:2024cv06696
Plaintiff:
Kellyann A. McKenzie
Defendant:
Michael October and Progressive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Mckenzie v. T-Mobile
as 1:2024cv06697
Plaintiff:
Kellyann McKenzie
Defendant:
T-Mobile
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Jiang v. Central Government of P.R. China et al
as 1:2024cv06705
Plaintiff:
Ziyao Jiang
Defendant:
Supreme People's Court of P.R. China, China Immigration Administration, Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Changsha Branch and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Jiang v Central Government of China et al
as 1:2024cv06707
Defendant:
Central Government of China and Ministry of Public Security of P.R. China, Hong
Plaintiff:
Ziyao Jiang
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jiang v. Dongsheng et al
as 1:2024cv06710
Defendant:
Li Dongsheng and Belle Roller
Plaintiff:
Ziyao Jiang
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Roland v. AA Belmont Ave LLC et al
as 2:2024cv06693
Plaintiff:
Takhiya Roland
Defendant:
AA Belmont Ave LLC doing business as First Response Urgent Care and Ahmed
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
O'Toole v. O'Malley
as 2:2024cv06692
Plaintiff:
Tammy O'Toole
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06664
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06665
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
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.
