Cases 1 - 10 of 42
KONTILAI v. HANSEL et al
as 1:2024cv02518
Defendant:
Mr. CARY HANSEL, HANSEL LAW P.C. and ASHTON ZYLSTRA
Plaintiff:
Mr. MYKALAI KONTILAI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
The Lambert Law Firm Prof. Corp. et al v. Hansel et al
as 1:2024cv02396
Plaintiff:
The Lambert Law Firm Prof. Corp. and George Lambert
Defendant:
Cary Hansel and Hansel Law, P.C.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
CARY v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
as 1:2023cv03469
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL CARY
Defendant:
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
CARY MEDICAL CENTER v. BECERRA
as 1:2023cv00879
Plaintiff:
CARY MEDICAL CENTER
Defendant:
XAVIER BECERRA
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
WAKEMED CARY HOSPITAL v. BECERRA
as 1:2022cv01745
Plaintiff:
WAKEMED CARY HOSPITAL
Defendant:
XAVIER BECERRA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
ADESHINA v. BUSH et al
as 1:2022cv00906
Plaintiff:
YINKA ADESHINA
Defendant:
GEORGE W. BUSH, BILL J. CLINTON, ELON MUSK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Cary Peterson v. Foster Garvey P.C., et al
as 20-5058
Defendant / Appellee:
Steven V. Finnen, A U.S. citizen residing in Micronesia, William Jaynes, Owner of K-Press, Seton Hall University, "SHU", a non-governmental organization located in New Jersey and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Cary Lee Peterson
ADVOCATE CHRIST MEDICAL CENTER et al v. AZAR II
as 1:2020cv00199
Plaintiff:
ADVOCATE LUTHERAN GENERAL HOSPITAL, INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH BALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SAINT MARY MEDICAL CENTER and others
Defendant:
ALEX M. AZAR II
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395
PETERSON v. FOSTER GARVEY P.C.
as 1:2019cv03662
Defendant:
ASHLEY BALCERZAK, KASELEHLIE PRESS, WILLIAM JAYNES and others
Plaintiff:
CARY LEE PETERSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
