Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Pressly v. US
as 24-1823
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. PRESSLY, 8599 CAR LOT, LLC, DIANE M. AKERS and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES
Burger v. US
as 24-1249
Plaintiff / Appellee:
BASIL AGAPION, SOPHIA S. AGAPION, KATHE BURGER and others
Plaintiff:
GUILFORD BUILDERS SUPPLY CO.
Defendant / Appellant:
UNITED STATES
Chapman Spring/Garden, LLC v. US
as 24-1250
Plaintiff / Appellee:
CHAPMAN SPRING/GARDEN, LLC, CHANEY-FRYE #4, LLC, D.S. CHANEY PROPERTIES #6, LLC and others
Defendant / Appellant:
UNITED STATES
US v. Croft
as 23-1200
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant / Appellant:
BRADLEY LANE CROFT
ASI, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing
as 19-1834
Defendant:
MANLEY TOYS, LTD., a Hong Kong, China corporation, dba Manley Toys, dba ToyQuest, MENARD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, FINGERHUT DIRECT MARKETING, INC., a Delaware corporation and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ASI, INC., a Minnesota corporation, fka Aviva Sports, Inc.
Respondent / Appellee:
AQUAWOOD LLC, BRIAN DUBINSKY, PARK LANE SOLUTIONS LTD. and others
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC
as 17-1118
Amicus Curiae:
STEVE WOZNIAK, AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTISTS, JOSEPH SCOTT MILLER and others
Defendant / Cross Appellant:
GOOGLE LLC and GOOGLE INC.
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
LANE V MSPB
as 10-3191
Petitioner:
Alberta Lane, Alberta Lane, Alberta Lane and others
Merit Systems Protection Board:
, , and others
BOYE V US
as 10-5043
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Chalene Bahe, Clinton Curtis, Dale Dennison and others
Counterclaimant-Appellee:
United States, United States, United States and others
YANT V US
as 09-5058
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Amanda M. Shaw, Amy Sadler, Andrea Lea Stupka and others
Defendant-Appellee:
United States
CLEARWATER SYSTEMS V EVAPCO
as 09-1284
Defendant-Appellee:
Bullock, Logan & Associates, Inc., Evapco, Inc. and John W. Lane
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Clearwater Systems Corporation
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.
