Cases 1 - 10 of 32
Endres v. Moody et al
as 1:2023cv12051
Plaintiff:
Steven P. Endres and Pro se litigant Steven P. Endres
Defendant:
Ashley Moody, Ken Paxton, City and County of San Francisco, California and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
James Garner v. Thomas Costello, et al
as 23-1519
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES H. GARNER
Defendant / Appellee:
THOMAS COSTELLO, CITY OF CHICAGO, PHILIP COCOMISE and others
James Garner v. Thomas Costello, et al
as 23-1374
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES H. GARNER
Defendant / Appellee:
THOMAS COSTELLO, CITY OF CHICAGO, PHILIP COCOMISE and others
James Garner v. Steven Kidd, et al
as 23-1194
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES H. GARNER
Defendant / Appellee:
THOMAS COSTELLO, CITY OF CHICAGO, STEVEN KIDD and others
James Garner v. Steven Kidd, et al
as 23-1006
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES H. GARNER
Defendant / Appellee:
STEVEN KIDD, THOMAS COSTELLO, CITY OF CHICAGO and others
Garner v. Kidd et al
as 1:2022cv06270
Plaintiff:
James Garner
Defendant:
Thomas Costello, City Of Chicago, Hashtag Vision, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
James Garner v. City of Chicago
as 22-2461
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES H. GARNER
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF CHICAGO
Garner v. City of Chicago
as 1:2022cv03185
Plaintiff:
James Garner
Defendant:
City of Chicago
Debtor In Possession:
Kim Foxx
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
The Board of Education of the City of Chicago, School District No. 299 v. Cephalon, Inc. et al
as 1:2019op46042
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation, Mallinckrodt, LLC, Endo Health Solutions, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
The Board of Education of the City of Chicago, School District No. 299
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Crowell Bey v. City of Chicago
as 1:2019cv05284
Defendant:
City of Chicago
Plaintiff:
Phillip Vernon Crowell Bey
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
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.
