Cases 1 - 10 of 86
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00904
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Dhaliwal et al v. Berrios et al
as 3:2023cv00340
Plaintiff:
Kulwinder Dhaliwal and Kamaljeet Dhaliwal
Defendant:
Noe Diaz Berrios and Ironhorse Transit LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Berrios v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2023cv00230
Plaintiff:
Andy Berrios
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 206 Social Security Benefits
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv02159
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003
Berrios v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2020cv03998
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Angel Ignacio Berrios
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mayra Berrios Delcid, et al v. William Barr
as 20-3290
Petitioner:
MAYRA ELIZABETH BERRIOS DELCID and ANY ALEXANDRA MAIRENA BERRIOS
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General
Montes v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv00157
Defendant:
Chiquita Brands International Inc
Plaintiff:
Montes, Angela Maria Henao Montes, Aura Maria Ocampo Ocampo and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
USA v. Alfredo Martinez
as 17-1114
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ALFREDO ANTONIO MARTINEZ, aka Victor Manuel Berrios
Jack Smith v. MDOC, et al
as 16-2153
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JACK SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BARBARA S. SAMPSON, Chairperson, TED HAMMON, Parole Board Member and others
Seaton #322788 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2015cv01330
Plaintiff:
Ronald Seaton #322788
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia Caruso, William Overton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
