Cases 101 - 110 of 774
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv00146
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Jordan Venable v. Don Calender, et al
as 20-15030
Defendant / Appellee:
CHRISTABEL WARZEL, MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS, DON CALENDER and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Jordan Venable v. Jesus Acosta
as 20-15031
Defendant / Appellee:
JESUS ACOSTA
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Jordan Venable v. Maricopa Cou. Sheriff's Office, et al
as 19-17588
Defendant / Appellee:
MARICOPA COUNTY 4TH AVENUE JAIL and MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Jordan Venable v. Maricopa County Justice Courts, et al
as 19-17589
Defendant / Appellee:
DREAMY DRAW JUSTICE COURT, MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN JUSTICE COURT, MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Jordan Venable v. City of Phoenix, et al
as 19-17590
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF PHOENIX and UNKNOWN PARTIES, Named as Paramedics Phoenix
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Jordan Venable v. Maricopa County Burn Center
as 19-17593
Defendant / Appellee:
MARICOPA COUNTY BURN CENTER
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Jordan Venable v. Glendale Police Department, et al
as 19-17594
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNKNOWN PARTIES, Unknown Officers and GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Jordan Venable v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Offi, et al
as 19-17595
Defendant / Appellee:
MARICOPA COUNTY 4TH AVENUE JAIL and MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JORDAN DUKE VENABLE
Sahm v. Onslow Bay Financial LLC et al
as 2:2019cv02090
Defendant:
US Bank National Association, Onslow Bay Financial LLC, Merscorp Holding Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Teri K Sahm and Teri Kealoha Sahm
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
