Cases 41 - 50 of 755
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv15532
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv15539
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv15517
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv15343
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Padilla v. Gonzalez et al
as 1:2023cv15334
Plaintiff:
Alan Padilla
Defendant:
Gonzalez, Medina, Abney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-3034
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Medina v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC et al
as 3:2023pq03433
Plaintiff:
Juan Medina
Defendant:
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and Syngenta AG
Special Master:
Randi Ellis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Ibarra-Medina v. Warden of USP Thomson
as 1:2023cv15066
Petitioner:
Ibarra Medina Armando and Armando Ibarra-Medina
Respondent:
Warden of USP Thomson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Armando v. Warden of USP Thomson
as 4:2023cv04177
Petitioner:
Ibarra Medina Armando
Respondent:
Warden of USP Thomson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lopez Medina v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv14730
Defendant:
Beauty Bell Enterprises LLC, Loreal USA, Inc., Loreal USA Products, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Maria Lopez Medina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
