Cases 1 - 10 of 17
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2024cv00205
Not Yet Classified:
HAZIM NADA, LORD ENERGY SA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES and others
Defendant:
NO PARTY
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
PEARSON v. BOWSER et al
as 1:2023cv03597
Plaintiff:
LAMAR R. PEARSON, SR.
Defendant:
MURIEL BOWSER, MENDOHLSON and DC RETIREMENT BOARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract
MPOY v. JOHN BURST et al
as 1:2023cv03027
Plaintiff:
BRUNO K. MPOY
Defendant:
JOHN BURST, DONIELLE POWE and MURIEL BOWSER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
GRIVNOW v. BOWSER et al
as 1:2020cv02000
Defendant:
KAITLYN GIRARD, ERROL JOHNSON, D. SCOTT BARASH and others
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN K. GRIVNOW
Cause Of Action: 10 U.S.C. § 1006
FLIPPIN v. GRAY et al
as 1:2019cv02624
Defendant:
ROBERT MCLEAN, DAN SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT and others
Plaintiff:
AMEER FLIPPIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ACE DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. et al v. BOWSER et al
as 1:2019cv01816
Plaintiff:
ACE DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. and EDWARD D. WASHINGTON
Defendant:
MURIEL BOWSER and JOHN E. POTTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MORGAN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
as 1:2019cv01029
Defendant:
OHUMUR RAZZACAE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, KARL L. RACINE and others
Plaintiff:
EDWARD LEE MORGAN, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
SAUNDERS v. BOWSER et al
as 1:2018cv01438
Plaintiff:
NATHAN A. SAUNDERS
Defendant:
MURIEL BOWSER , AMANDA ALEXANDER, JANE SPENCE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. v. BOWSER et al
as 1:2018cv00301
Plaintiff:
UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
Defendant:
MURIEL BOWSER , DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CLINTON LACEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCKOY v. MABUS
as 1:2016cv01313
Defendant:
RAYMOND EDWIN MABUS, JR.
Plaintiff:
MURIEL MCKOY
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.
