Cases 1 - 9 of 9
MOSES v. AIR FORCE et al
as 1:2023cv03239
Plaintiff:
LAUREN ASHLEY MOSES
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FRANK KENDALL and ALEX WAGNER
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
ROBINSON v. AUSTIN et al
as 1:2022cv02590
Plaintiff:
BOBBY L ROBINSON, III and BOBBY L. ROBINSON, II
Defendant:
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III and FRANK KENDALL, III
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
BAKER v. KENDALL
as 1:2022cv02132
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW BAKER
Defendant:
FRANK KENDALL, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
HOFFLER v. KENDALL
as 1:2022cv02744
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH HOFFLER
Defendant:
FRANK KENDALL, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
PRECISION METALS CORP. et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al
as 1:2022cv01586
Plaintiff:
PRECISION METALS CORP., ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI and THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2022cv01821
Plaintiff:
Mr. Glenn G. Coleman
Defendant:
Hon. FRANK KENDALL
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
COLEMAN v. KENDALL
as 1:2022cv01822
Plaintiff:
THOMAS G. COLEMAN
Defendant:
FRANK KENDALL
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
THOMPSON v. AUSTIN et al
as 1:2022cv01090
Plaintiff:
CARISSA L. THOMPSON
Defendant:
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, FRANK KENDALL, III and PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
STIRRUP v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al
as 1:2021cv01893
Plaintiff:
HEIDI STIRRUP, MARK EDWARD GREEN, JOHN DOE #3 and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, GENERAL LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701
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.
