Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Rademaker v. Zanefauker et al
as 3:2021cv01757
Plaintiff:
David Rademaker
Defendant:
Dr. Zanefauker, PHD, Warden Covello, Q. Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
David Rademaker v. D. Paramo, et al
as 19-56245
Defendant / Appellee:
R. SEGOVIA, R. DECASTRO, G. STRATTON, Chief Deputy Warden and others
Defendant:
B. SELF, R. OLSON, E. GAREZ and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID RADEMAKER
Rademaker v. Juarez et al
as 3:2018cv01831
Defendant:
A. Hernandez, R. Walker, B. Self and others
Plaintiff:
David Rademaker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Rademaker v. Paramo et al
as 3:2017cv02406
Plaintiff:
David Rademaker
Defendant:
D. Paramo, G. Stratton, J. Juarez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
David Rademaker v. Daniel Paramo
as 14-56946
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID A. RADEMAKER
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden and DANIEL PARAMO, Warden
David A. Rademaker v. Michael S. Evans
as 2:2008cv08486
Respondent:
Michael S. Evans
Petitioner:
David A. Rademaker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwin McRory, et al v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Com
as 11-36084
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWIN C MCRORY, a Washington resident and WILLIAM RADEMAKER, Jr., Washington citizen
Defendant - Appellee:
CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company
David Rademaker v. A. Hedgepeth, et al
as 11-17223
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID RADEMAKER
Defendant - Appellee:
A. HEDGEPETH, Warden, R. MACK, M.D., L. FOX, R.N. and others
Morales v. Rademaker et al
as 2:2011cv00380
Plaintiff:
Benito Morales
Defendant:
Rademaker, Day, Rayles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McRory et al v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Company
as 2:2010cv02095
Plaintiff:
Edwin C McRory and William Rademaker, Jr
Defendant:
Catlin Specialty Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
