Cases 1 - 10 of 50
Jeremy Dunn, et al v. Shane Penfield, et al
as 24-1804
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Dunn and Kevin Love
Defendant:
Shane Penfield, in his official and individual capacities, Penfield Law Firm Professional LLC, Marty Jackley, in his individual capacity and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1632
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv05005
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Dupree v. Segal
as 0:2023cv01676
Petitioner:
Linda Sade' Dupree
Respondent:
Michael Segal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Kinard et al v. 3M Company
as 0:2023cv01215
Plaintiff:
Brian Kinard, Laywood Molette, Jonathan Overfelt and others
Defendant:
3M Company
Dunn et al v. Penfield et al
as 5:2023cv05025
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Dunn and Kevin Love
Defendant:
Shane Penfield, Penfield Law Firm Professional LLC, Marty Jackley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv01296
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Elnora Delcid v. Burger King LLC, et al
as 22-2822
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Elnora Delcid
Defendant / Appellee:
Burger King, LLC, Sarah L. Goodman, employee, Clayton A. Blankenfeld, mgts and others
Delcid v. Burger King LLC et al
as 5:2022cv05052
Defendant:
Matt Carpenter, Burger King LLC, Sarah L. Goodman and others
Plaintiff:
Elnora Delcid
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Delcid Elnora v. Burger King LLC, et al
as 21-3686
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Delcid Elnora
Defendant / Appellee:
Burger King, LLC, Ralph William Housh, Mgts., Brian Michael Dupree and others
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.
