Cases 31 - 40 of 1,435
Ruiz-Nava v. Garland
as 23-9606
Petitioner:
JOSE DAVID RUIZ-NAVA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General
Biers v. Dentons US, et al
as 23-4147
Plaintiff / Appellee:
SAMUEL L. BIERS, an individual and Chief Tribal Judge of the Te-Moak Supreme Court
Defendant / Appellee:
BRYAN L. BOWKER, in his official and individual capacity and JOSEPH MCDADE, in his individual and official capacity
Defendant:
LESLIE A. BERG-GROVE, an individual, KEVIN CLOCK, an individual, PAUL CONABLE, an individual and others
Cross Claimant:
STEVEN J. MCDADE, an individual
United States v. Paycer
as 23-5120
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
DAVID BERT PAYCER
Bey v. Harper, et al
as 23-3231
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHELLE AVERY BEY
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID HARPER, MATTHEW WILLARD, TYRONE GARNER and others
Lebsock 7, et al v. Bank of Colorado
as 23-1342
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LEBSOCK 7, LLLP, DAVID LEBSOCK, individuals and CHERYL LEBSOCK, individuals
Plaintiff:
L7 FM ELEVATOR, LLC, L7 TRADING, LLC and L7 GRAIN, LLC
Defendant / Appellee:
BANK OF COLORADO
Ulery v. Happy Panda, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv02786
Plaintiff:
David Ulery
Defendant:
Happy Panda, Inc. and Robert Selfors
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Ulery v. Maverick Leads, LLC et al
as 1:2023cv02771
Plaintiff:
DAVID ULERY
Defendant:
Maverick Leads LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
United States v. Trujillo
as 23-1318
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JAMES DAVID TRUJILLO, JR.
Holton et al v. Exp Realty
as 2:2023mc00718
Plaintiff:
David Holton
Petitioner:
InsideRE
Defendant:
Exp Realty
Carlisle v. Sovos Brands, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv02503
Plaintiff:
Samuel Carlisle
Defendant:
Sovos Brands, Inc., William R. Johnson, Todd R. Lachman and others
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.
