Cases 11 - 20 of 477
Walter Allen v. Kings County Criminal Court
as 24-7052
Plaintiff:
Walter L. Allen
Defendant:
Kings County Criminal Court
LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al v. BECERRA
as 1:2024cv00972
Plaintiff:
LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, ANAHEIM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER and others
Defendant:
XAVIER BECERRA
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Aror-Ark O'Diah v. John Roberts, et al
as 24-5074
Plaintiff:
Aror-ark Ark O'diah
Defendant:
John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, United States Small Business Administration, also known as United States Small Business Administration, SBA, Isabella Casillas Guzman, SBA Administrator and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-7038
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-7039
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00846
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
NEA BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al v. BECERRA
as 1:2024cv00419
Not Yet Classified:
NEA BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CRITTENDEN, BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL UNION COUNTY and others
Plaintiff:
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, COREWELL HEALTH GROSSE POINTE HOSPITAL, COREWELL HEALTH WILLIAM BEAUMONT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL and others
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 1156 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03842
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER et al v. BECERRA
as 1:2023cv03811
Plaintiff:
CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER, ATRIUM HEALTH PINEVILLE, ATRIUM HEALTH ANSON and others
Defendant:
XAVIER BECERRA
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
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.
