Cases 61 - 70 of 97
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv00654
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CRAIG v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
as 1:2010cv00825
Plaintiff:
CRAIG
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CRAIG v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
as 1:2010cv00769
Plaintiff:
CRAIG
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MUHAMMAD v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
as 1:2010cv00707
Plaintiff:
ROBERT GOOBY MUHAMMAD
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CRAIG v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al
as 1:2010cv00698
Plaintiff:
CRAIG
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILBER v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
as 1:2010cv00700
Plaintiff:
DARREL LEE WILBER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CRAIG v. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT - DOMA et al
as 1:2010cv00689
Plaintiff:
CRAIG
Defendant:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT - DOMA, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, UNITED STATES CONGRESS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LAIL et al v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al
as 1:2010cv00210
Plaintiff:
RODNEY LAIL, IRENE SANTACROCE, JAMES B. SPENCER and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PAUL GARDNER and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
MESHAL v. HIGGENBOTHAM et al
as 1:2009cv02178
Plaintiff:
AMIR MESHAL, AMIR MESHAL and AMIR MESHAL
Defendant:
CHRIS HIGGENBOTHAM, STEVE HERSEM, TWO UNKNOWN NAMED EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, OR AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
SIEVERDING et al v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
as 1:2009cv00562
Plaintiff:
DAVID SIEVERDING and KAY SIEVERDING
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
