Cases 41 - 50 of 70
ARMSTRONG v. THOMPSON et al
as 1:2010cv00945
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
KAREN THOMPSON and DAVID SUTKUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
HOUSTON v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2010cv00711
Plaintiff:
TONEY HOUSTON
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, HELEN MARBERRY, HATTIE SIMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARMSTRONG v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
as 1:2010cv00501
Plaintiff:
ANDY ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
JONES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al
as 1:2010cv00444
Plaintiff:
CHARLES E. JONES, JR.
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, FEDERAL STUDENT AID, OMBUDSMAN OFFICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
RICHARDSON et al v. AZKO NOBEL, INC.
as 1:2009cv02112
Defendant:
MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA CORPORATION, CHINOOK GLOBAL LIMITED, EVONIK DEGUSSA GMBH and others
Plaintiff:
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, KIRK CHAFFEE, STATE OF MINNESOTA and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
ARMSTRONG v. THOMPSON et al
as 1:2009cv02086
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
KAREN THOMPSON and DAVID SUTKUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Martin Armstrong v. Harley Lappin, et al
as 09-5370
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Martin A. Armstrong
Defendant - Appellee:
Harley G. Lappin, Director of Bureau of Prisons and John Does 1-10
Martin Armstrong v. SEC
as 09-1260
Petitioner:
Martin A. Armstrong
Respondent:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Francis Gates, et al v. Syrian Arab Republic, et al
as 09-7108
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Francis Gates, Individually and as the administrator of the Estate of Olin Eugene "Jack" Armstrong, Jr., Pati Hensley, Sara Hensley and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Syrian Arab Republic
Defendant - Appellee:
Syrian Military Intelligence, Bashar Al-Asad, President and Asif Shawkat, General
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.
