Cases 21 - 30 of 2,406
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1420
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
RICARDO INC., WESLEY SCHARMEN, PHILIP MICHAEL and others
King v. Watson
as 2:2024cv02365
Petitioner:
Richard N. King
Respondent:
Tom Watson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00147
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1468
Defendant:
DARSHAN KARWAT, POLARIS STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, MARCUS LEHMANN and others
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
Coretek, Inc. v Peterson
as 4:2024cv11429
Plaintiff:
Coretek, Inc Doing business as Coretek Services
Defendant:
Tom Peterson
Delgado v. Raspberry et al
as 2:2024cv11088
Plaintiff:
Maria Delgado
Defendant:
Sarah Raspberry, Jamie Richardson, Shelly Sitton and others
Barry et al v. Newaygo, County of, LLC et al
as 1:2024cv00387
Plaintiff:
William Barry, Mark Booher, Tom Burkholder and others
Defendant:
Heemstra Enterprises, LLC, Newaygo, County of, Jason O'Connell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Civil Rights
Bradacs v. Delta, County of et al
as 2:2024cv00052
Plaintiff:
Laura Bradacs
Defendant:
Delta, County of, Sherry Godfrey and Tom Sabor
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal-Other Civil Rights
Childress et al v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio et al
as 1:2024cv00214
Plaintiff:
Akil Childress, Emma Sue Long, Charlene Berkhalter and others
Defendant:
City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney, Victoria Parks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Zelesnik v. Massie et al
as 2:2024cv00073
Plaintiff:
Paula Zelesnik
Defendant:
Congressman Thomas Massie, Mayor Aftab Pureval, Tom T. Wallace and others
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.
