Cases 21 - 27 of 27
UPSON v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2010cv00360
Plaintiff:
DEANNE ROSE UPSON
Defendant:
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TONJE ROBINSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00144
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WESBY et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2009cv00501
Plaintiff:
THEODORE WESBY, ALISSA COLE, ANTHONY MAURICE HOOD and others
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EDWIN ESPINOSA, J. NEWMAN and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2008cv00921
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 07-5320
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Amicus Curiae For Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Johnson, Sallie v. Colvin, Carolyn, et al
as 07-7121
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Sallie L. Johnson
Defendant - Appellee:
Carolyn W. Colvin, Or her successor(s) in her/his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services and Carolyn W. Colvin individually, Gayle L. Turner, Or her successor(s) in his/her official capacity as Chief Administrator/DHS/YSA at Oak Hill Youth Center, and Gayle L. Turner individually, George Perkins, Or his successors in her/his official capacity as Administrator/Secure Facilities at Oak Hill Youth Center and George Perkins individually and others
STEPHENS et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2007cv01162
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JACK STEPHENS and KELLIE DAWN CLARK
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICES, INC., GAYLE HODGES and others
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7429 IRS: Tax Jeopardy Assessment
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.
