Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Kelton v. Nordstrom
as 24-50002
Plaintiff:
Randall Kelton and Kara Bell
Defendant:
Nordstrom, Incorporated, doing business as Nordstrom Rack, Kelsie Fucci, Nathan Hecht and others
USA v. Rodriguez-Gill
as 22-50628
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Trinidad Rodriguez-Gill, also known as Trinidad Gill-Rodriguez
Gill v. Crockett
as 21-51129
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Rudolfo Gill
Defendant / Appellee:
Charlene Crockett, Unit Captain, R. Almanza, Assistant Warden, Ms. Williams, Lieutenant and others
Emmons v. Gilles
as 21-50603
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Steven Audis Emmons
Defendant / Appellee:
Judge George J. Gilles, 142nd District, Midland County, Midland County, Sheriff Gary Painter, Midland County Sheriff's Department and others
Coomer v. Roth
as 21-10182
Defendant / Appellee:
Mickenzie M. Gill, Julie A. Marguez, Anthony R.. Marguez, Sgt. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Tracey Harris Coomer
Oscar Shaw v. State of Texas, et al
as 20-50814
Defendant / Appellee:
Vivian Wood, District Clerk, Midland County Courthouse, U.T.M.B., TDCJ-ID and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Oscar L. Shaw
Rudolfo Gill v. Charlene Crockett, et al
as 20-50582
Defendant / Appellee:
M. Gutierrez, Correctional Officer, Kimbery Grist, Correctional Officer IV, Ms. Pepi, Correctional Officer V and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Rudolfo Gill
Luis Gonzalez v. Shawn Gills, Warden
as 20-60547
Respondent / Appellee:
SHAWN R. GILLS, Warden, Adams County Correctional Institution
Petitioner / Appellant:
LUIS H. GONZALEZ, also known as Carlos Ramos Sanchez
Rudolfo Gill Robredo v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
as 20-60471
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
RUDOLFO GILL ROBREDO, also known as Rudolfo Gill
USA v. Labrandon Gill
as 19-10967
Defendant / Appellant:
LABRANDON MARQUISE GILL
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
