Cases 11 - 20 of 38
Williams et al v. Department of the Air Force
as 6:2016cv01530
Plaintiff:
Dorthy Williams and Carmen Guzman
Defendant:
Department of the Air Force
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Williams et al v. Department of the Air Force
as 6:2016cv00808
Plaintiff:
Dorothy Williams and Carmen Guzman
Defendant:
Department of the Air Force
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-12004
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-11849
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Domantay v. Department of the Air Force And Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA)
as 8:2016cv00767
Plaintiff:
Margarito Tan Domantay
Defendant:
Department of the Air Force and Defense Commissary Agency
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Avery v. United States Department of the Air Force et al
as 7:2015cv00419
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Avery
Defendant:
United States Department of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James and Robert A McDonald
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, et al
as 15-10098
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and others
MILES v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al
as 3:2014cv00360
Plaintiff:
JUDITH M MILES
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00670
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination
ADVANCED TESTING TECHNOLOGIES INC v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
as 5:2014cv00224
Plaintiff:
ADVANCED TESTING TECHNOLOGIES INC
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
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.
