Cases 31 - 40 of 1,229
In re: Chestek PLLC
as 22-1843
Appellant:
In re: CHESTEK PLLC
Appellee:
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Petitioner:
DAVID E. BOUNDY
Stevenson v. DVA
as 24-1077
Petitioner:
MICHAEL E. STEVENSON, JR.
Respondent:
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ShafovaloffIn re: Shafovaloff
as 24-1035
Appellant:
In re: THOMAS E SHAFOVALOFF
Appellee:
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
COOPER v. USA
as 1:2023cv01427
Plaintiff:
PAUL COOPER and PAUL E. COOPER
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
Adams v. US
as 23-2269
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES M. ADAMS, JAMES R. ALLEN, LOUIS C. ATKINS and others
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Anderson v. US
![Final or Interim Order We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case](/bundles/docketsbrowsing/images/gavel.png)
as 23-2224
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STANLEY M. ANDERSON, PAUL L. BAILEY, RONALD L. BLASH and others
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
HANSON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2023vv01346
Petitioner:
MARK E HANSON and MARK E. HANSON
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
Allen v. US
as 23-2225
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WAYNE E. ALLEN, JOSEPH E. ARMSTEAD, LAWRENCE C. BECKER and others
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Beavis v. US
![Final or Interim Order We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case](/bundles/docketsbrowsing/images/gavel.png)
as 23-2222
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT L. BEAVIS, EUGENE R. BISCAILUZ, ALAN G. CHESTERMAN and others
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
KITCHEN v. USA
as 1:2023cv01150
Plaintiff:
JAMES E. KITCHEN
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
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.