Cases 1 - 10 of 34
Arthur G. Smith et al v. MAS Financial Services, Inc. et al
as 8:2023cv00987
Plaintiff:
Arthur G Smith and Kerri M Smith
Defendant:
MAS Financial Services, Inc. and John Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Christensen et al v. United Automobile Insurance Company et al
as 2:2022cv02125
Plaintiff:
Thomas Christensen, E. Breen Arntz and Gary Lewis
Defendant:
United Automobile Insurance Company, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, Daniel Polsenberg and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
G. Smith v. USDC-ORMIn re: G. Smith v. USDC-ORM
as 21-71424
Not Classified By Court:
In re: G. SMITH, JILL LIMERICK, JAMES SANSONE and others
Petitioner:
G. SMITH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, MEDFORD
Jose Morales v. R. Torres, et al
as 21-15029
Defendant / Appellee:
GAMBOA, ALVARADO-TORRES and R. TORRES
Defendant:
JONATHAN E. AKANNO, LAMBERT, DAVE DAVEY, Warden and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSE LORENZO MORALES
Nolte v. Franklin Jr. et al
as 4:2020cv05585
Defendant:
Susan G. Smith, Savannah Gomes, Marlene Adam and others
Plaintiff:
Regina L. Nolte
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
Keith Smith v. Robert LeGrand, et al
as 20-15766
Respondent / Appellee:
ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA
Petitioner / Appellant:
KEITH G. SMITH
G. Smith v. Jill Limerick, et al
as 20-35162
Defendant / Appellee:
BARBARA WILT, JAMES SANSONE and JILL LIMERICK
Plaintiff / Appellant:
G. SMITH
321 Rampart v. William G. Smith et al
as 8:2017cv02130
Plaintiff:
321 Rampart
Defendant:
Does and William G. Smith
Ted R. Bryan et al v. William G. Smith et al
as 8:2017cv02009
Plaintiff:
Lauren D. Bryan and Ted R. Bryan
Defendant:
Does and William G. Smith
321 Rampart v. William G. Smith et al
as 8:2017cv02012
Plaintiff:
321 Rampart
Defendant:
Does and William G. Smith
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.
