Cases 1 - 10 of 40
Curtis-Gene: Carroll v. Tuyet Pitkonen, et al
as 23-35541
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS-GENE: CARROLL, Aggrieved Plaintiff, Sui Juris
Defendant / Appellee:
TUYET PITKONEN, MARK HODGSON, Attorney, SHAUN HUPPERT, Attorney and others
Kari Lake, et al v. Bill Gates, et al
as 23-16022
Plaintiff:
KARI LAKE and MARK FINCHEM
Appellant:
ANDREW D. PARKER, PARKER DANIELS KIBORT, LLC, KURT B. OLSEN and others
Defendant / Appellee:
BILL GATES, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, CLINT HICKMAN, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, JACK SELLERS, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and others
Defendant:
ADRIAN FONTES, Arizona Secretary of State, MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, REX SCOTT, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors and others
Kari Lake, et al v. Bill Gates, et al
as 23-16023
Plaintiff:
KARI LAKE and MARK FINCHEM
Appellant:
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Counsel for Plaintiffs
Defendant / Appellee:
BILL GATES, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, CLINT HICKMAN, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, JACK SELLERS, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and others
Defendant:
ADRIAN FONTES, Arizona Secretary of State, MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, REX SCOTT, as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors and others
William Bernal, et al v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, et al
as 23-15548
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILLIAM BERNAL and CELIA BERNAL
Appellant:
MATTHEW BECKER, Counsel for Plaintiffs
Defendant / Appellee:
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, HINKLEY, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy, SCOTT JONES, Sacramento County Sheriff and others
Scott York v. USA, et al
as 23-55122
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SCOTT YORK, an individual
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, (Unknown Officers, Agents, and Employees Acting Under the Direction Thereof), a department of the federal government of the United States and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-16465
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cynthia Wheeler, et al v. County of Orange, et al
as 22-55662
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CYNTHIA WHEELER and CURTIS WHEELER
Appellant:
ROGER E. NAGHASH, counsel for plaintiffs
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, ITS PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, ITS CITATION PROCESSING CENTER, SHANE L. SILEBY, individually, and in his official capacity as Director, County of Orange-Public Works, SOCORRO VILLEGAS, individually, and in her official capacity as Officer and others
Arthur Ezor v. Jim McDonnell, et al
as 21-55117
Defendant / Appellee:
JOSE JAIME, ELLIE PAGE, Trustee of the Jill Ilana Wizel Special Needs Trust, DOE, 1; All Persons Unknown Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff's Title, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff's Title Thereto and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR and A. EDWARD EZOR
Defendant:
ALICIA G. ROSENBERG and JAMES V. SELNA
Arthur Ezor v. Jim McDonnell, et al
as 19-56421
Defendant / Appellee:
JOSE JAIME, ELLIE PAGE, Trustee of the Jill Ilana Wizel Special Needs Trust, DOE, 1; All Persons Unknown Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff's Title, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff's Title Thereto and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR
Jayantibhai Patel, et al v. City of Long Beach
as 18-55738
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, DBA Princess Inn and DAKSHA PATEL, Individual and all others similarly situated and Plaintiff Tenants
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation
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.
