Cases 11 - 20 of 50
MUHAMMED v. GOMEZ et al
as 1:2022cv01748
Plaintiff:
CECIL MUHAMMED
Defendant:
GOMEZ, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LANDON P. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01693
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
MARGOLIS et al v. CECIL
as 1:2022mc00022
3Rd Party Defendant:
JAMES MARGOLIS
Plaintiff:
ROY S. MOORE
Defendant:
GUY CECIL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv03725
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Carl Parker, et al v. AGRI
as 19-5301
Plaintiff / Appellant:
R. C. Abrams, Lucious Abrams, Cecil Brewington and others
Defendant / Appellee:
United States Department of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, Secretary
Cecil Brewington v. Sonny Perdue
as 19-5027
Defendant / Appellee:
Sonny Perdue, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture
Undetermined:
Maurice McGinnis, by his conservator Derrick K. Jones
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Cecil Brewington, et, al
CROSSFIT, INC. et al v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2018cv02296
Plaintiff:
CROSSFIT, INC., U.S. RIGHT TO KNOW and ANDREA MARIA CECIL
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
CECIL v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 1:2018cv01788
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL and others
Plaintiff:
ROSE CECIL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ARMSTRONG v. SELECT CONTRACTORS, INC. et al
as 1:2018cv00153
Defendant:
SELECT CONTRACTORS, INC. and CECIL HARRIS
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PARKER et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
as 1:2017cv02834
Plaintiff:
CARL PARKER, EDDIE SLAUGHTER, LUCIOUS ABRAMS and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
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.
