Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Kevin Adams v. Mark Elrich
as 20-1988
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN PATRICK MORRISSEY, Chief Judge District Court Headquarters Maryland Judicial Center, in his official and or non-official capacity, JASON CAREW, Montgomery County Sheriff's Department, in his official and non-official capacity, JOHN HAFER, Parole and Probation in his official and or non-official capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KEVIN CHRISTOPHER ADAMS
Chopp v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00157
Plaintiff:
Esther Chopp
Defendant:
Genworth Financial, Inc. , William H. Bolinder , G. Kent Conrad and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Ratliff v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00132
Plaintiff:
David Ratliff, II
Defendant:
Genworth Financial, Inc., William H. Bolinder, G. Kent Conrad and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
James v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00078
Plaintiff:
Brian James
Defendant:
Genworth Financial, Inc., Thomas J. McInerney, James S. Riepe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rice v. Genworth Financial Incorporated et al
as 3:2017cv00059
Plaintiff:
Alexander Rice
Defendant:
Genworth Financial Incorporated , Thomas J. McInerney , James S. Riepe and others
Consolidated_plaintiff:
David Ratliff, II
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
The Standard Fire Insurance Co v. Thomas Moffett, II
as 10-114
Petitioner:
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY and others
Respondent:
THOMAS L. MOFFETT, II, CLAUDETTE BIRCHETTE, JOHN DEY and others
:
, and
Federal Emergency Management A v. Thomas Moffett, II
as 10-113
Petitioner:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Respondent:
THOMAS L. MOFFETT, II, CLAUDETTE BIRCHETTE, JOHN DEY and others
:
US v. Darryl Moffett
as 08-7556
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DARRYL L. MOFFETT
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.
