Cases 51 - 60 of 108,383
Kamara v. Garland
as 24-1688
Petitioner:
MOHAMED DARAMY KAMARA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Clinton County, NY v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
as 24-1686
Plaintiff:
CLINTON COUNTY, NY and COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Defendant:
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., OPTUMRX INC. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Essex County, NY v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
as 24-1689
Plaintiff:
ESSEX COUNTY, NY and COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Defendant:
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., OPTUMRX INC. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
D'Arrigo Bros Co. of New York, Inc. v. Gramercy Produce Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv04841
Plaintiff:
D'Arrigo Bros Co. of New York, Inc.
Defendant:
Gramercy Produce Inc., Anthony J. Vivacqua, Sr., Anthony J. Vivacqua, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 07 U.S.C. § 499 Agricultural Commodities Act
Financial Services Vehicle Trust v. Samaroo
as 2:2024cv04512
Plaintiff:
Financial Services Vehicle Trust
Defendant:
Kemuel Samaroo
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1989 Fraud-Motor Vehicle (Odometer)
Nunez v. Credit Acceptance Corporation
as 3:2024cv01122
Plaintiff:
Jessica Nunez
Defendant:
Credit Acceptance Corporation
Bajaj Gas and Convenience, Inc. et al v. BP Products North America Inc.
as 7:2024cv04849
Plaintiff:
Bajaj Gas and Convenience, Inc. and Ranjit Singh
Defendant:
BP Products North America Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act
Layes v. Garland
as 24-1667
Petitioner:
ABUL LAYES, MONOWARA BEGUM, TANJIA AKTHER TANHA and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Chenango County, NY v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
as 24-1668
Plaintiff:
CHENANGO COUNTY, NY and COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Defendant:
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., OPTUMRX INC. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
United States of America v. Charles (Garcia)
as 24-1673
Defendant:
JEVAUN CHARLES, ALYSHA BELTRE, DEURI CARAMBOT and others
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
