Cases 81 - 90 of 1,236
Recinos v. Mormon Church, et al.
as 23-2956
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TIFFANY DION RECINOS
Defendant / Appellee:
MORMON CHURCH, LDS Religious Organization, TRESA MOREAU, SCOTT DAVID WINSHIP, Estate Attorney and others
Long v. Noland, et al.
as 23-2080
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DE WITT LAMAR LONG
Defendant / Appellee:
CHAPLAIN CHARLES NOLAND, JR., Halawa Correctional Facility, HAMADA, Correctional Officer, Halawa Correctional Facility, SGT. LEAIALAIMATAFAO, Correctional Officer, Halawa Correctional Facility and others
McCurry v. Allison
as 23-2075
Petitioner / Appellant:
SCOTT ALLEN MCCURRY
Respondent / Appellee:
KATHLEEN ALLISON
Saddozai v. Bolanos, et al.
as 23-2032
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHIKEB SADDOZAI
Defendant / Appellee:
CARLOS G. BOLANOS, Sheriff, SCOTT KIRKPATRICK, Captain, SERVICE LEAGUE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and others
Buckelew v. Lovelace, et al.
as 23-1980
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DION SCOTT BUCKELEW
Defendant / Appellee:
CAPTAIN LOVELACE, S.D.S.D. Captain, CAPTAIN DARNELL, S.D.S.D. Captain, LIEUTENANT NAVARRO, S.D.S.D. Lieutenant and others
Ryan Dixon v. Marshall Ferguson, et al
as 23-70146
Petitioner:
RYAN ADAM DIXON
Respondent:
MARSHALL FERGUSON, KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, JIE LIANG GOGUEN and others
Rune Kraft v. Maricopa, County of, et al
as 23-16046
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RUNE KRAFT
Defendant / Appellee:
MARICOPA, COUNTY OF, MICHAEL REESE, JONATHAN S LEVINE and others
United States of America v. Lonich, et al.
as 23-1178
Plaintiff / Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID JOHN LONICH, BRIAN SCOTT MELLAND and SEAN CLARK CUTTING
Matthew PappasIn re: Matthew Pappas
as 23-80043
Respondent:
In re: MATTHEW SCOTT PAPPAS, Esquire, Admitted to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit: June 20, 1995
Kate Adams v. County of Sacramento, et al
as 23-80042
Petitioner:
KATE ADAMS
Respondent:
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and SCOTT JONES, Sheriff
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.
