Cases 1 - 10 of 74
Sean Buford, et al v. CAM2 International L.L.C., et al
as 23-8010
Respondent:
Sean Buford, Arkansas Eastern, 1:19-cv-00082, Terry Zornes, Kansas, 2:19-cv-02257, Adam Sevy, Kansas, 2:19-cv-02257 and others
Not Classified By Court:
William James, Missouri Western, 3:19-cv-05089, Duane Fosdick, California Eastern, 2:19-cv-01850, Ellen Allicks, Illinois Central, 2:20-cv-02177 and others
Petitioner:
CAM2 International L.L.C. and Smitty's Supply, Inc.
OptumRx, Inc. v. Carlinville Health & Prescriptions, Inc.
as 0:2023cv00799
Petitioner:
OptumRx, Inc and OptumRX, Inc.
Respondent:
Carlinville Health & Prescriptions, Inc., d/b/a Sullivan Drugs and Carlinville Health & Prescriptions, Inc. doing business as Sullivan Drugs
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 1 U.S. Arbitration Act
Jogaak Jogaak v. Warden, Daniel Sullivan, et al
as 23-1129
Petitioner:
Jogaak Deng Jogaak
Respondent:
Warden Daniel Sullivan and Attorney General of South Dakota
Alexander Palomarez v. Daniel Sullivan, et al
as 22-3081
Petitioner:
Alexander Schroder Palomarez
Respondent:
Warden Daniel Sullivan and Attorney General of South Dakota
Black v. Housing Authority et al
as 5:2022cv06100
Plaintiff:
Lorraine D Black
Defendant:
Housing Authority, HUD, Kenneth Sullivan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Housing Discrimination
United States v. Adrian Sullivan
as 22-2601
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Adrian Darrell Sullivan
United States v. James Sullivan
as 22-2494
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
James Sullivan
United States v. James Sullivan
as 22-2493
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
James Sullivan
Alexander Palomarez v. Daniel Sullivan, et al
as 22-2426
Petitioner:
Alexander Schroder Palomarez
Respondent:
Daniel Sullivan, Warden and Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
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.
