Cases 121 - 130 of 154
Estes v. Sterling Bank et al
as 4:2011cv02335
Plaintiff:
Dennis L Estes
Defendant:
Sterling Bank , Chernosky, Smith, Ressling & Smith, PLLC, Raymond Naudin and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
IN RE Office of Disciplinary Counsel
as 2:2011mc00059
Respondent:
B. Michael Smith
Petitioner:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Smith et al
as 4:2011cv00187
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Cindy Smith, Michael Smith and Sandite Billiards
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
James Bonham v. USDC-AZP
as 11-70672
:
In re: JAMES WILL BONHAM
Petitioner:
JAMES WILL BONHAM
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX
Real Party In Interest:
STATE OF ARIZONA, TERRY L. GODDARD, named as Terry Goddard/ Attorney General of the State of Arizona, JANICE K. BREWER, named as Jan Brewer/ Governor of the State of Arizona and others
Michael Smith v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
as 10-6070
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
C.R. BARD, INC.
Smith v. Dikar, S. Coop. LTD
as 1:2010mi00159
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Michael Smith
Defendant:
Dikar, S. Coop. LTD
McIntier v. Collection Technology, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv00338
Plaintiff:
Sandra Lee McIntier
Defendant:
Collection Technology, Inc., Adam Montoya and Michael Smith
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Smith v. GC Services, LP
as 1:2010cv01060
Plaintiff:
Michael Smith
Defendant:
GC Services, LP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2010cv00697
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL SMITH
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and STUART J. ISHIMARU
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION et al
as 1:2010cv00703
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL SMITH
Defendant:
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, CLAUDIA KOENIG, HEATHER ASHBURY and others
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.
