Cases 21 - 30 of 2,754
In Re: TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation
as 1:2024cv02110
Defendant:
Beijing Douyin Information Service Co. Ltd, Douyin Ltd., TikTok Inc and others
Not Yet Classified:
TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation
Plaintiff:
Anibeth Bravo, Katie Murphy, Artemis Buckley and others
Traylor v. Pacciuco LLC
as 24-691
Plaintiff:
SYLVESTER TRAYLOR
Defendant:
TOWN OF WATERFORD, LAW OFFICE OF LLOYD LANGHAMMER, LLC, PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION and others
Black v. Murphy et al
as 2:2024cv10634
Plaintiff:
Yvonne Black and Yvonne Black [E-filer]
Defendant:
Michael J. Murphy, Jason Pless, Reginald Van Wulfen and others
Murphy v. City of Elmira
as 24-660
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER M. MURPHY
Defendant:
OTTAVIO CAMPANELLA, MATTHEW BUZZETTI, TIMOTHY OVERLY and others
Pelletier v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas
as 24-1338
Interested Party:
ROBERT MURPHY, CHRISTOPHER PELLETIER, JAMES MASSETT, SR. and others
Petitioner:
GREGG PELLETIER
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS
Tankersley v. Murphy
as 1:2024cv01754
Plaintiff:
Tavares-Maurice Tankersley
Defendant:
Kevin Murphy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
ESFANDIARI et al v. BLINKEN et al
as 1:2024cv00544
Plaintiff:
MANDANA ESFANDIARI and HOMAYOUN FOROUZESH
Defendant:
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, MORA NAMDAR, SEAN MURPHY and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
United States of America v. Murphy
as 24-404
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
RAYSHAWN NIBLACK and SHERROD MURPHY
Lanskey v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00471
Plaintiff:
Marcus Lanskey
Defendant:
Medical Properties Trust, Inc., Edward K. Aldag, Jr., J. Kevin Hanna and others
Zelesnik v. Murphy et al
as 2:2024cv00024
Plaintiff:
Paula Zelesnik
Defendant:
Chris Murphy, Paul Rand, Chris C Glynn 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.
