Cases 31 - 40 of 44
Bachman et al v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services et al
as 1:2011cv05940
Plaintiff:
Eric C Bachman, Ramsey E Bachman, Alexander T Bachman and others
Defendant:
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Amanda Catheline, Tara Hammond and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
United States of America v. Augustus
as 1:2011cv01296
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Rita J. Augustus
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7402
Young v. Hodges et al
as 3:2010cv50088
Plaintiff:
Augustus E. Young
Defendant:
Larry Hodges and Unknown Officers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Augustus Wright
as 10-1249
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
AUGUSTUS WRIGHT
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv07750
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00745
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
IN RE: ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC., SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE AND EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION
as 1:2009ml06000
Plaintiff:
PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION 719 PENSION FUND, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION 719 PENSION FUND, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION 719 PENSION FUND and others
Defendant:
ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC., ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC., ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Stockholders Suits
Good Karma, LLC, et al v. USA
as 09-2009
Petitioner - Appellant:
GOOD KARMA, LLC, AUGUSTUS TRADING, LLC, BISHOP TRADING, LLC and others
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2008cv00535
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
