Cases 31 - 40 of 235
Meor Adlin, et al v. All Nippon Airways, et al
as 22-16634
Not Classified By Court:
In re: TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MEOR ADLIN, FRANKLIN AJAYE, ANDREW BARTON and others
Appellant:
XANADU CORP.
Defendant:
ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS, MALAYSIA AIRLINES, UNITED AIRLINES and others
USA v. Joseph Reynolds
as 22-30120
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JOSEPH FRANKLIN REYNOLDS
USA v. Gary Franklin
as 22-30072
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
GARY EDWARD FRANKLIN
Moradel Calix v. Garland
as 22-177
Petitioner:
FERNANDO DE JESUS MORADEL CALIX and FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO MORADEL HERNANDEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Almendarez Alvarez v. Garland
as 22-123
Petitioner:
FRANKLIN ALMENDAREZ ALVAREZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Teron Franklin v. Timothy Filson, et al
as 21-17087
Petitioner / Appellant:
TERON FRANKLIN
Respondent / Appellee:
TIMOTHY FILSON and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA
BWD Properties 2, LLC, et al v. Bobby Len Franklin, et al
as 21-17046
Plaintiff / Appellee:
BWD PROPERTIES 2, LLC, BWD PROPERTIES 3, LLC and BWD PROPERTIES 4, LLC
Defendant:
ROBERT LEE FRANKLIN, BOBBY DEAN FRANKLIN and DONNA SUE OWENS
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
BOBBY LEN FRANKLIN, DBA Daydream Land & Systems Development Company
3Rd Party Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Franklin Wilson v. Matthew Atchley
as 21-71354
Petitioner:
FRANKLIN JASPER WILSON
Respondent:
MATTHEW ATCHLEY, Warden
Mathew Rendon v. County of Orange, et al
as 21-56163
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MATHEW RENDON, individually
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF ORANGE, KEITH S. FRANKLIN and EVER I. ZELAYA
Defendant:
DOES, 1 to 30 and I. ZUMAR
Eric Franklin v. USA
as 21-35749
Petitioner / Appellant:
ERIC QUINN FRANKLIN
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
