Cases 11 - 20 of 80
Picozzi v. State of Nevada et al
as 2:2022cv01011
Defendant:
Julie Matousek, Danyele Sipes, State of Nevada and others
Plaintiff:
Mark Picozzi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sipe v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2022cv00586
Plaintiff:
Cary Sipe
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
David Getzen v. Jaramillo, et al
as 21-16855
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID GETZEN
Defendant / Appellee:
JARAMILLO, E-11, YCSO Sgt., SCOTT MASCHER, Yavapai County Sheriff, BILLY SIPE, Jr., Mohave County Judge and others
Kauffman v. Sipes et al
as 3:2021cv08230
Plaintiff:
Zion Zachary Kauffman
Defendant:
Billy K Sipes, Jr., Rick Lambort and Anita Dale
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McNulty #350894 v. Sipes et al
as 3:2021cv08225
Plaintiff:
James A McNulty
Defendant:
Billy K Sipes, Jr., Brennen Cassidy, Karolina Czapilinska and others
Petitioner:
Vonda McNulty
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kauffman v. Arizona, State of et al
as 3:2021cv08185
Plaintiff:
Zion Z Kauffman
Defendant:
Arizona, State of, MCSO, D.A. Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Getzen v. Jarmillo et al
as 3:2021cv08095
Defendant:
Jessica Barbey, Bryan Shea, Adam Zickerman and others
Plaintiff:
David M Getzen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sipes v. InApp Inc. et al
as 3:2021cv00799
Defendant:
Does 1 - 10, InApp Inc. and Vijay Kumar
Plaintiff:
Todd Sipes
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Sipe v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2020cv05827
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff:
Lisa Sipe
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Getzen v. Ducey et al
as 3:2020cv08178
Defendant:
Brian Shea, Scott Mascher, Doug Ducey and others
Plaintiff:
David Getzen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
