Cases 61 - 70 of 87
USA v. Daniel Carr
as 11-5725
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DANIEL G. CARR
USA v. Joseph Carr
as 11-1759
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOSEPH CARR
USA v. Joey Carr, Jr.
as 10-6316
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOEY DEMONT CARR, JR.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv10177
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345 Default of Student Loan
Type:
Other Statutes
USA v. Adarus Black
as 10-1032
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ADARUS MAZIO BLACK, aka Dude, aka Chuck, Mark Andrea Gillery, Jr., aka Shamario Lamont Kidd, aka Shamario L. Carr
USA v. Adarus Black
as 10-1035
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ADARUS MAZIO BLACK, aka Dude, aka Chuck, Mark Andrea Gillery, Jr., aka Shamario Lamont Kidd, aka Shamario L. Carr
USA v. Adarus Black
as 10-1017
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ADARUS MAZIO BLACK, aka Dude, aka Chuck, Mark Andrea Gillery, Jr., aka Shamario Lamont Kidd, aka Shamario L. Carr
Carr v. Fidelity National Insurance Company
as 2:2009cv14258
Plaintiff:
Christopher Carr
Defendant:
Fidelity National Insurance Company and Fidelity National Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Type:
Other Statutes
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA,, et al v. Globus Medical, Inc.
as 09-6144
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC., MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO OPERATIONS COMPANY and others
Defendant:
GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.
Movant - Appellant:
ANDREW R. CARR, Esq. and BOBBIE VADEN
USA v. Marcus Carr
as 09-6107
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
MARCUS CARR, aka Maricus Carr
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.
