Cases 1 - 10 of 119
Carr v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
as 24-1977
Plaintiff:
FIRPO WYCOFF CARR
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DOJ - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DOES, 1-10 and others
Williams v. Carr, et al.
as 24-800
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY HUNTLEY WILLIAMS
Respondent:
RODNEY CARR and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Nealy v. Shinn, et al.
as 23-4080
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES E. NEALY
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION, AND REENTRY, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, R CARR, Deputy Warden at Eyman Complex, SMU 1 Unit, S BRENNAN, Captain/Disciplinary Hearing Officer at SMU 1 and others
Stephanie Hopping, et al v. Lorin Schell, et al
as 23-16072
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEPHANIE HOPPING, DIANNA HOPPING-RAIS, NICOLAS HOPPING and others
Defendant / Appellee:
LORIN EDWARD SCHELL, LESLIEY D. HOLLAND, ANTHONY MICHAEL DESPOTES and others
Firpo Carr v. FBI, et al
as 23-55687
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FIRPO WYCOFF CARR
Defendant / Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Firpo Carr v. FBI, et al
as 23-55467
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FIRPO WYCOFF CARR
Defendant / Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-15434
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
In re: Mary Carr, et al v. Google LLC, et al
as 23-15285
Not Classified By Court:
In re: GOOGLE PLAY STORE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MARY CARR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DIANNE BENTLEY, JENNIFER GRACE and others
Defendant / Appellant:
GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED, GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED and others
Intervenor:
AMAZON.COM LLC
Amicus Curiae:
ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, BUSINESS AND ANTITRUST LAW PROFESSORS 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.
