Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Darren Mack v. Renee Baker, et al
as 21-15410
Respondent / Appellee:
RENEE BAKER, Warden, ADAM LAXALT and JAMES DZURENDA
Petitioner / Appellant:
DARREN ROY MACK
Mack v. Baker et al
as 3:2018cv00324
Petitioner:
Darren Roy Mack
Respondent:
Adam Laxalt, James Dzurenda and Renee Baker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Darren Mack v. USDC-NVR
as 14-72363
:
In re: DARREN ROY MACK
Petitioner:
DARREN ROY MACK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, RENO
Real Party In Interest:
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTRO and RENEE BAKER, Warden of Ely State Prison
Mack vs E. K. McDaniel, et al
as 3:2012cv00104
Defendant:
Darren Roy Mack
Respondent:
Catherine Cortez Mastro and E. K. McDaniel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Joan Mack v. Randal Kuckenmeister, et al
as 09-15291
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOAN R. MACK, as Trustee of the Palace Jewelry & Loan Co., Inc. 401 (k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDAL S. KUCKENMEISTER, CPA, MST, as Administrator of the Estate of Charla Marie Mack, Deceased and DARREN ROY MACK, an individual
Defendant:
JOHN DOES, 1 through 50, inclusive
Joan Mack v. Randal Kuckenmeister, et al
as 09-15290
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JOAN R. MACK, as Trustee of the Palace Jewelry & Loan Co., Inc. 401 (k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDAL S. KUCKENMEISTER, CPA, MST, as Administrator of the Estate of Charla Marie Mack, Deceased
Defendant - Appellant:
DARREN ROY MACK, an individual
Defendant:
JOHN DOES, 1 through 50, inclusive
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2008cv00690
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Mack vs Kuckenmeister, et al
as 3:2008cv00370
Plaintiff:
Joan R Mack
Defendant:
Randal Kuckenmeister, Darren Roy Mack and Darren Roy Mack
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
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.
