Cases 101 - 110 of 178
Andrew John Robert Muir v. County of Riverside et al
as 5:2018cv00125
Defendant:
County of Riverside, William Di Yori, William Di Yori and others
Plaintiff:
Andrew John Robert Muir
John Demos, Jr. v. Donald Holbrook
as 17-73344
Petitioner:
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr.
Respondent:
DONALD R. HOLBROOK
John Demos, Jr. v. USDC-WAWSE
as 17-72570
:
In re: JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr.
Petitioner:
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE
Real Party In Interest:
JOHN DOE, DOC Medical Director, FRANK JOHN SMITH, JON REYES and others
John Demos, Jr. v. USDC-WAWSE
as 17-71524
:
In re: JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr.
Petitioner:
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE
Real Party In Interest:
STATE OF WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Coleman, et al.
as 2:2016cv00851
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Defendant:
Andrew John Coleman, Gregory Spencer Kinsman and John Robert Sloss
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
John Robert Demos Jr. v. The United States et al
as 2:2015cv04771
Petitioner:
John Robert Demos, Jr
Respondent:
The State of California, The State of Nevada, The State of Oregon and others
Ou-Young v. Roberts et al
as 5:2013cv04442
Plaintiff:
Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young
Defendant:
John Roberts, Jr., Claudia Wilken, Lucy Koh and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 241
John J Madsen et al v. Chris Buffum et al
as 5:2012cv01605
Defendant:
Chris Buffum, Rebecca Buffum, Does and others
Plaintiff:
Michael J Coker and John J Madsen
USA v. John Hardy
as 12-10365
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOHN ROBERT HARDY
John Robert Demos Jr v. The USA et al
as 2:2012cv04940
Plaintiff:
John Robert Demos, Jr
Defendant:
State of Washington and USA
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.
