Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Darling v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv00384
Plaintiff:
Thomas P Darling
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Israel v. O'Malley et al
as 1:2024cv00086
Plaintiff:
Horqham Shitraqi Israel, Jr.
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley and Mrs. Darling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Stephens et al v. County of Broome et al
as 3:2024cv00009
Plaintiff:
Lori Cordi, Paula Stephens, Lori Cliburn and others
Defendant:
County of Broome and Jane St. Amour
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hallock v. Darling
as 1:2023cv00008
Plaintiff:
Jonathan H. Hallock
Defendant:
Briahna E. Darling
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Lovett v. Bennett
as 1:2022cv05462
Plaintiff:
Steven J Lovett
Defendant:
Acting Supt. Susie Bennett, Shane Topel, Kevin Darling and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bower v. Savangela LLC et al
as 6:2022cv06246
Plaintiff:
Timothy Bower
Defendant:
Savangela LLC and Michael Darling
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00011
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Alford et al v. 3M Company et al
as 1:2021cv10509
Plaintiff:
Gregory Alford, Curtis Anderson, Ronald Atwater and others
Defendant:
3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co), AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., Amerex Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 nr
Darling v. United States of America
as 21-1525
Respondent / Appellee:
United States of America
Petitioner / Appellant:
Keith Darling
Flores-Contreras v. Garland
as 21-6077
Petitioner:
DARLING EMABEL FLORES-CONTRERAS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL and ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
