Cases 11 - 20 of 615
USA v. Loucane McCormick
as 24-3043
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
LOUCANE MCCORMICK
Peeples et al v. Campbell et al
as 4:2023cv01198
Plaintiff:
James Peeples and Tasiah Lee
Defendant:
Rachel Campbell, David McCormick, James Dunham and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Spencer v. Tim et al
as 0:2023cv62214
Plaintiff:
Darline S. Spencer
Defendant:
McCormick Tim, Future Infrastructure Holdings, LLC, Cardinal Contractors, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Injunction
MCCORMICK v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2023vv02011
Petitioner:
TYLER MCCORMICK
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
William Kaetz v. USA, et al
as 23-2803
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILLIAM F. KAETZ
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN M. VAZQUEZ, U.S. Dist. Court Judge New Jersey, Newark Vicinage, JOSEPH MCCORMICK, U.S. Probation Officer and others
Letricia Brown v. State of California, et al
as 23-55813
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LETRICIA LAVERN BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER and others
McCormick v. US
as 23-2314
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARK MCCORMICK
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
USA v. Cody McCormick
as 23-12451
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CODY MACK MCCORMICK
KAETZ v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2023cv03624
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM F. KAETZ
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ, JOSEPH MCCORMICK and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
In re: General Motors, LLC
as 23-106
Petitioner:
In re: GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
Respondent:
MARK D. CHAPMAN, WILLIAM MCDUFFIE, CLAY KINCHELOE and others
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.
