Cases 31 - 40 of 16,911
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03908
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03858
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Singh v. Garland
as 24-1445
Petitioner:
SIMERJIT SINGH
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mendoza-Gonzalez v. Garland
as 24-1451
Petitioner:
CONCEPCION MENDOZA-GONZALEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Merchan-Berrezueta v. Garland
as 24-1452
Petitioner:
FABIAN PATRICIO MERCHAN-BERREZUETA, JHENNY NATALI ALVAREZ-ALVAREZ, MICKEL JOEL MERCHAN-ALVAREZ and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
People of the State of New York v. City of New York
as 24-1443
Plaintiff:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Commissioner DERMOT F. SHEA, Chief of Department TERENCE A. MONAHAN and others
Intervenor:
POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC. and SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
Ye v. Garland
as 24-1358
Petitioner:
ZHIMING YE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Elberus v. Garland
as 24-1442
Petitioner:
JEAN MICHEL ELBERUS, ROSE LAURE ELBERUS ALEXANDRE, LAURIE CHRISTIE ELBERUS and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03835
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03865
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure 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.
