Cases 1 - 10 of 100
DIAL et al v. USA
as 1:2026cv00711
Plaintiff:
BRIAN DIAL, JASON WOODS, KAREN STEVENS and others
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
STEVENS v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2026vv00662
Petitioner:
KIMBERLY STEVENS
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
KLOBUCARICH v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2026vv00636
Petitioner:
STEVEN J. KLOBUCARICH
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
Tehan v. Collins
as 26-1612
Claimant:
STEVEN R. TEHAN
Respondent:
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
DHL Express (USA) v. United States of America et al
as 1:2026cv01824
Plaintiff:
DHL Express (USA)
Defendant:
United States of America, U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and others
Intervenor:
STEVEN GILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Singleton v. MSPB
as 26-1488
Petitioner:
STEVEN QUINN SINGLETON
Respondent:
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Singleton v. MSPB
as 26-1491
Petitioner:
STEVEN QUINN SINGLETON
Respondent:
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
In re: Williams
as 26-1455
Appellant:
In re: STEVEN BRIAN WILLIAMS
Appellee:
JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
HUBBARD v. USA
as 1:2025cv02151
Plaintiff:
STEVEN ERICH HUBBARD
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
Steven Madden, Ltd. et al v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al
as 1:2025cv00793
Plaintiff:
Steven Madden, Ltd., B.B. Dakota Inc., Cejon Accessories, Inc. and others
Defendant:
RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, United States Customs and Border Protection and United States
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.
