Cases 31 - 40 of 135
Christopher Chandler v. Donald Berlin, et al
as 20-7020
Defendant / Appellee:
Investigative Consultants, Inc., Investigative Consultants, Inc. of Washington, DC and Donald Berlin
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Christopher Chandler
Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does, et al
as 20-5040
Defendant / Appellee:
District of Columbia, (Washington DC), Andrew Russell, Supervisor, Office of Special Counsel and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Benjamin Cunningham
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv00092
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12188
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv03844
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
In Re:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 11 U.S.C. § 101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv03779
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
In Re:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 11 U.S.C. § 101
JACOBS v. WASHINGTON DC STATE
as 1:2019mc00200
Plaintiff:
BRANDON MICHAEL JACOBS
Defendant:
WASHINGTON DC STATE
MILLER v. WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
as 1:2019cv03074
Defendant:
THE WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT and WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Plaintiff:
JOSPEH MILLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC v. BORDES et al
as 1:2019cv02442
Plaintiff:
PennyMac Holdings, LLC
Defendant:
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4228 RENO ROAD, N.W WASHINGTON, DC 20008 and CHANTEL BORDES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARRIS v. WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
as 1:2019cv02146
Defendant:
WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Plaintiff:
JASMINE HARRIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv02136
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
