Cases 11 - 18 of 18
Hayes et al v. Chevron Pipe Line Company
as 2:2012cv00287
Plaintiff:
Peter Hayes , Thi-Ly Downing-Hays , George Eugene Barton and others
Defendant:
Chevron Pipe Line Company and PacifiCorp
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Sage Ventures et al v. Ace Oil et al
as 2:2009cv00935
Plaintiff:
Sage Ventures, Sage Ventures, Terron Investments and others
Defendant:
Ace Oil, Somersby Properties and John E. Schofield
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv01260
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Ford v. Federal Bureau Of Prisons, et al
as 08-1275
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD J.X. FORD, JR., Bro., and other B.O.P. Prisoners
Defendant - Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, HARLEY LAPPIN, Director, SARA REVELL, Warden, U.S.P. Florence and others
Ford v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2008cv00882
Plaintiff:
Edward J.X. Ford, Jr.
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, Sara Revell and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Gibbons et al v. National Real Estate Investors et al
as 2:2007cv00990
Plaintiff:
Peter Gibbons and Else Donnell
Defendant:
National Real Estate Investors, National Training Institute, Net Marketing Alliance and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Wood v. Burd et al
as 1:2007cv01563
Plaintiff:
Twila Wood
Defendant:
Charles Burd, Patricia M. Burd, Fay A. Burd and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (a) Quiet Title Action
Pacific Equity v. Schofield et al
as 2:2007cv00224
Plaintiff:
Pacific Equity and Pacific Equity
Defendant:
John Schofield and Linda Ann Schofield
Counter Claimant:
John Schofield and Linda Ann Schofield
Counter Defendant:
Pacific Equity and Pacific Equity
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601 Truth in Lending
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.
