Cases 11 - 20 of 74
Cupp v. County of Sonoma et al
as 4:2022cv04307
Plaintiff:
Ronald Cupp
Defendant:
County of Sonoma, Andrew Smith, Todd Hoffman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv01861
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
(UD) (PS) Wilmington Trust National Association v. Harms et al
as 2:2021cv02201
Plaintiff:
Wilmington Trust National Association
Defendant:
Laurie Harms, Gavin Mehl, Dale Norman Harms and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444
James Cupp, et al v. Kamala Harris, et al
as 21-16809
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES EDWARD CUPP and LAWRENCE HAVEN
Defendant / Appellee:
KAMALA D. HARRIS, XAVIER BECERRA and ROB BONTA
Defendant:
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CHRISTOPHER W. BOYD, CHRISTIAN BAERRESEN and others
Kassandra Cupp v. Kilolo Kijakazi
as 21-35754
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KASSANDRA CUPP
Defendant / Appellee:
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Dow v. Kelly et al
as 6:2021cv00626
Defendant:
Hoyt C. Cupp and Kelly
Plaintiff:
Calvin Wayne Dow, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Avila v. Berg et al
as 3:2021cv03301
Defendant:
Jim Robertson, C. Cain, T. Johnson and others
Plaintiff:
Adrian Avila
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniel Cisneros v. J. Vangilder, et al
as 21-15405
Defendant:
D. MELTON, J. CUSKE and K. OHLAND
Plaintiff / Appellee:
DANIEL CISNEROS
Defendant / Appellant:
S. CUPP, J. VASQUEZ and J. VANGILDER
Daniel Manriquez v. J. Vangilder, et al
as 21-15403
Defendant:
D. MELTON, S. CUPP, J. CUSKE and others
Defendant / Appellant:
J. VASQUEZ and J. VANGILDER
Plaintiff / Appellee:
DANIEL MANRIQUEZ
Daniel Cisneros v. J. Vangilder, et al
as 21-15363
Defendant:
D. MELTON, J. CUSKE and K. OHLAND
Defendant / Appellee:
J. VANGILDER, S. CUPP and J. VASQUEZ
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL CISNEROS
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.
