Cases 71 - 80 of 854
JONES v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION et al
as 1:2022cv01815
Petitioner:
THOMAS R. JONES
Defendant:
PAROLE COMMISSION
Respondent:
JONES MICHELE and UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01680
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
USA v. Brittany Jones
as 22-3035
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Brittany Jones, also known as Brittany Alleesse Nancy Jones
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01583
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
JONES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
as 1:2022cv01513
Plaintiff:
ARTREZE JONES
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. XLEAR, INC. et al
as 1:2022mc00053
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
XLEAR, INC. and NATHAN JONES
Tiffani Jones v. NVR Incorporation
as 22-7064
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Tiffani Jones
Defendant / Appellee:
NVR Incorporation, trading as Ryan Homes
NOBLE et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
as 1:2022cv01206
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW NOBLE, MATTHEW SMITH, JONIE SMITH and others
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JONES v. STATE OF MISSOURI et al
as 1:2022cv01238
Petitioner:
BOBBY LARRY JONES
Respondent:
STATE OF MISSOURI and DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jones Lang Lasalle Brokerage, Inc. v. 1441 L Associates, LLC
as 22-7046
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jones Lang Lasalle Brokerage, Inc.
Defendant / Appellee:
1441 L Associates, LLC, doing business as 1441 L Street Associates, LLC
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.
