Cases 11 - 20 of 25
WHITE v. ZATECKY
as 1:2015cv02064
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
ROBERT WHITE
Respondent:
DUSHAN ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WHITE v. ZATECKY
as 1:2015cv02066
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
ROBERT WHITE
Respondent:
DUSHAN ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WHITE v. ZATECKY
as 1:2015cv02065
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
ROBERT WHITE
Respondent:
DUSHAN ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
White et al v. AbbVie, Inc. et al
as 1:2014cv06998
Plaintiff:
Robert White and Joanie White
Defendant:
AbbVie, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
White v. Dart et al
as 1:2014cv06822
Plaintiff:
Robert White
Defendant:
Thomas Dart
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Padron et al v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al
as 1:2013cv00981
Defendant:
Immigration & Customs Enforcement , Ricardo Wong , Christopher McDaniels and others
Plaintiff:
Digno Padron , Raul Valdez Banuelos , Ahmed Yusuf and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
HOPSON v. ORAL SURGUREY AND MAXILLOFACIAL GROUP et al
as 4:2012cv00072
Defendant:
SAM AGUAIR, AUTO-SMART, MIKE BENNET and others
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 10-3658
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 09-2160
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv00095
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345 Default of Student Loan
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.
