Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01534
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in - Habeas Corpus: INS
Sharp et al v. United States of America
as 2:2024cv02043
Plaintiff:
Wesley A. Sharp, Andrea Matos and Carmen Matos
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
Carrel et al v. Cadence Premier Cargo Inc et al
as 0:2021cv00236
Plaintiff:
Patrick Carrel and Craig Carrel
Defendant:
Cadence Premier Cargo Inc, Cadence Premier Logistics LLC, Cadence Premier Logistics Co and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Time Plumbing, Heating, & Electric, Inc v. Payless Rooter & Mato Plumbing et al
as 1:2021cv01242
Defendant:
Payless Rooter & Mato Plumbing, Payless Rooter & Mato Plumbing, LLC and 303 Plumbing
Plaintiff:
Time Plumbing, Heating, & Electric, Inc
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv01247
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
United States of America v. $99,900 in U.S. Currency
as 1:2017cv00661
Defendant:
$99,900 in U.S. Currency
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Claimant:
Anthony Matos
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
Smith et al v. City and County of Denver et al
as 1:2016cv00386
Plaintiff:
Derek Smith, Shannon Riley and Eric Hepper
Defendant:
City and County of Denver , Robert White , Jeff Shrader and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
United States v. Martinez
as 14-2209
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SANDRA MARTINEZ, AKA Sandra Mato, AKA Sandra Mata
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Folsom v. Cimarron Correctional Facility et al
as 4:2014cv00088
Plaintiff:
Glen Folsom
Defendant:
Cimarron Correctional Facility, Corrections Corporation of America, Chad Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
