Cases 61 - 70 of 143
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv03971
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157
Michael Perry, et al v. Hooker Creek Asphalt and Pavin, et al
as 17-35524
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL RAY PERRY, United States of America ex rel.
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee:
HOOKER CREEK ASPHALT AND PAVING, LLC, OREGON MAINLINE PAVING, LLC, J.C. COMPTON CONTRACTOR, INC. and others
Young
as 2:2017cv01062
Defendant:
State of Nevada
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray Young
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
USA v. Michael Ramirez
as 17-55281
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL RAY RAMIREZ
Swanson v. Attorney General et al
as 3:2017cv00216
Defendant:
Attorney General and Veteran's Affairs
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray Swanson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Michael Emry v. USDC-ORE
as 16-73303
:
In re: MICHAEL RAY EMRY
Petitioner:
MICHAEL RAY EMRY
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, EUGENE
Real Party In Interest:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Michael Ramborger v. Scott Frauenheim
as 16-16349
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL RAY RAMBORGER
Respondent - Appellee:
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM
Michael Fuqua v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 16-15597
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL RAY FUQUA, AKA Michael Fuqua
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden, Director of ADC Central Office, CAMIT, Correctional Officer II at Special Management Unit #1, FRANCISCO, CO III at SMU #1 and others
France v. Mendocino County Sheriff's Office et al
as 5:2016cv01058
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray France
Defendant:
Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, Timothy Pearce, Bednar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Herbst v. Colvin
as 4:2015cv05116
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray Herbst
Defendant:
Carolyn W Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
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.
