Cases 41 - 50 of 70
CRUZ V. JOYNER ET AL
as 1:2016cv00590
Petitioner:
FRANK CRUZ
Respondent:
CARLTON JOYNER and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
RONDON V. COLVIN
as 1:2016cv00231
Plaintiff:
OTHONIEL CRUZ RONDON
Defendant:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Interested_party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Sanchez-Rodriquez, et al. v. Jacksons Farming Company of Autryville, et al.
as 7:2016cv00028
Plaintiff:
Constantino Sanchez-Rodriquez , Jose Alberto Aguilera-Hernandez , Ulises Edgardo Cruz-Gonzalez and others
Defendant:
Jacksons Farming Company of Autryville , William Brent Jackson and William Rodney Jackson
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 206
Cruz v. Joyner et al
as 5:2015hc02305
Petitioner:
Frank Cruz
Respondent:
Carlton Joyner and State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ward v. United States of America et al
as 5:2015ct03129
Plaintiff:
Larry Ray Ward
Defendant:
United States of America, Charles Samuels, C/O Barnes and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
McNeil v. Cruz
as 7:2014cv00169
Petitioner:
Carl Ray McNeil, Jr.
Respondent:
M Cruz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Jaimes-Cruz v. USA
as 7:2014cv00087
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Adolfo Jaimes-Cruz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Cruz v. Perry et al
as 2:2014cv00014
Petitioner:
Ricardo Cruz
Respondent:
Frank L. Perry and Cynthia Thorton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
United States of America v. Mendoza-Cruz' Personal Property et al
as 5:2014cv00211
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Mendoza-Cruz' Personal Property, A Hi Point Model 995 Rifle, Twelve (12) Rounds 9MM Ammunition and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 0924
CRUZ v. MARSHALL et al
as 1:2013cv01097
Petitioner:
ALBERTO MARQUEZ CRUZ
Respondent:
BOB W. MARSHALL and KIERAN J. SHANAHAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
