Cases 71 - 80 of 1,817
Vieira Santos, et al v. Garland
as 23-2013
Petitioner:
MARYANGELA VIEIRA SANTOS and D.L.V.D.L.
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Matul Macario, et al v. Garland
as 23-1985
Petitioner:
USIEL AROLDO MATUL MACARIO and NORMA CAROLINA PEREZ MATUL
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Romero-Cameros v. Garland
as 23-1988
Petitioner:
KEYLOR NATANAEL ROMERO-CAMEROS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Orellana-Mejia v. Garland
as 23-1980
Petitioner:
JOSE MARCIAL ORELLANA-MEJIA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Dos-Reis, et al v. Garland
as 23-1981
Petitioner:
DEVANI DOS-REIS, IVANETE FERREIRA DOS SANTOS-REIS, L.F.D.S.R. and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Seguin v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, et al
as 23-1967
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARY SEGUIN
Defendant / Appellee:
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, in its official capacity, RHODE ISLAND OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, in its official capacity, GERO MEYERSIEK, in his individual and official capacity and others
Defendant:
LISA PINSONEAULT, in her individual and official capacity, JULIE PATALANO HAMIL, FRANK DIBIASE and others
Aguilar-Manobanda, et al v. Garland
as 23-1982
Petitioner:
JAIMEN WILSON AGUILAR-MANOBANDA, GLADYS NARCISA PATIN-REA, C. S. A.P. and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Penafiel-Peralta, et al v. Garland
as 23-1959
Petitioner:
JOSE VICENTE PENAFIEL-PERALTA, MONICA LOURDES CASTRO-PINDA and G.E.P.C.
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Davies v. Garland
as 23-1954
Petitioner:
JAMES DAVIES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-1934
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Not Yet Classified:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. 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.
