Cases 41 - 50 of 385
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv06517
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Boyd v. Connecticut
as 22-2060
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Robert Boyd
Defendant / Appellee:
City of Hartford and Kimberly Wall, Detective, in her individual capacity
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, J. Patten Brown, III, Attorney, in their individual and or official capacity, Karen L. Lydecker, Attorney, in their individual and or official capacity and others
Weber v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2022cv00654
Plaintiff:
CarrieAnn Weber
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Kane v. de Blasio
as 22-1876
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael Kane, individually, and for all others similarly situated, William Castro, individually, and for all others similarly situated, Margaret Chu, individually, and for all others similarly situated and others
Appellant:
Matthew Keil, John De Luca, Dennis Strk and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Eric Adams, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, David Chokshi, in his official capacity of Health Commissioner of the City of New York and New York City Department of Education
Bushansky v. PCSB Financial Corporation et al
as 1:2022cv07267
Plaintiff:
Stephen Bushansky
Defendant:
PCSB Financial Corporation, Jeffrey D. Kellogg, Robert C. Lusardi and others
New Yorkers For Religious Liberty, Inc. v. The City of New York
as 22-1801
Plaintiff / Appellant:
New Yorkers For Religious Liberty, Inc., Gennaro Agovino, Curtis Cutler and others
Defendant / Appellee:
City of New York, Eric Adams, Dave Chokshi, in his official capacity as Health Commissioner of the City of New York and others
Defendant:
Roberta Reardon
Appellant:
Matthew Keil, John De Luca, Dennis Strk and others
Weber et al v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2022cv04518
Plaintiff:
Tiara Weber, Trevonne King and Jaquinn Maye
Defendant:
The City of New York, Police Officer Richard M. Catapano, Police Officer Michael A. Anes and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv03989
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Oriska Corporation v. Troy Operating Co. LLC
as 22-1139
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Oriska Corporation, individually and derivatively to Carrier Defendant Oriska Insurance Company
Defendant:
Troy Operating Co. LLC, (Diamond) Employer-Defendant, Bent Philipson, Owner-Defendant, The Philipson Family Trust, Prohibited Transaction Defendant and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Donna Hodge, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interest of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Annette Hall, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interest of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Karen Grant Williams, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interest of the Class may appear, Class Defendant and others
Oriska Corporation v. Highgate LTC Management, LLC
as 22-1155
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Oriska Corporation, individually and derivatively to Carrier-Defendant Oriska Insurance Company
Defendant:
Highgate LTC Management, LLC, Employer-Defendant, DBA Northwoods Rehabilitaion & Extended Care, Eugene Nachamkin, Owner-Defendant, Diana R. Koehler, Owner-Defendant and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Donna Hodge, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Annette Hall, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant, Karen Grant Williams, as the Class Representative of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants as the interests of the Class may appear, Class Defendant and others
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.
