Cases 41 - 50 of 65
Jones v. Utah Board of Pardons et al
as 2:2013cv00035
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Wade Jones
Respondent:
Utah Board of Pardons and Dennis Sorensen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bank of America v. Sorensen et al
as 2:2012cv01026
Plaintiff:
Bank of America
Defendant:
D. Stephen Sorensen, Shannon P. Sorensen, Sweet Water Enterprises and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
Brueningsen et al v. Resort Express et al
as 2:2012cv00843
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Brueningsen , Aldis Barsketis , Tami Stephenson and others
Defendant:
Resort Express , All Resort Coach , Park City Transportation and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
Soto v. State of Utah et al
as 2:2012cv00668
Plaintiff:
Jose Soto
Defendant:
State of Utah, Central Utah Correctional Facility and Dennis Sorensen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Peck v. Utah Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2012cv00386
Plaintiff:
Christopher Todd Peck
Defendant:
Utah Department of Corrections, Curis L. Garner, S. Lund and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Todd v. Bigelow, et al
as 12-4042
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAYNE E. TODD
Defendant - Appellee:
ALFRED BIGELOW, DENNIS SORENSEN, also know as FNU Sorenen, JOHN IRONS, also know as FNU Irons and others
Hardman v. United States of America et al
as 5:2012cv03060
Plaintiff:
Frank Hardman
Defendant:
United States of America, (fnu) Mudlins, (fnu) Perkins and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Stewart v. Sorensen
as 2:2011cv01188
Petitioner:
Calvin Paul Stewart
Respondent:
Dennis Sorensen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Walker v. Sorensen
as 2:2011cv00900
Petitioner:
Stephen James Walker
Respondent:
Dennis Sorensen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
USA v. Sorensen
as 1:2011cv01758
Petitioner:
USA
Respondent:
James E. Sorensen
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7402
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.
