Cases 51 - 60 of 2,145
Sharp v. Dolan
as 8:2023cv01409
Plaintiff:
Daryl Sharp
Defendant:
Timothy Dolan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Sharp v. Dolan et al
as 8:2023cv01351
Plaintiff:
Daryl Sharp
Defendant:
Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Apostolic Nuncio Christopher Pierre, Archbishop Timothy Broglio and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04416
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Curtis Sharp v. United States
as 23-2303
Petitioner:
Curtis Sharp
Respondent:
United States of America
CANSLER et al v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
as 5:2023cv00176
Plaintiff:
AMY CANSLER, ANDREW CANSLER, CHRISTOPHER LANDERS and others
Defendant:
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
P. Lavi v. Bradley Sharp
as 2:2023cv03638
Plaintiff:
P. Lavi
Respondent:
Bradley Sharp
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
USA v. Sharp
as 23-20211
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Nolan Sharp
United States v. Robert Sharp
as 23-1878
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Robert Carl Sharp
Banta et al v. Ferguson et al
as 2:2023cv00112
Plaintiff:
Amanda Banta, Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop, Inc., Aero Precision, LLC and others
Defendant:
Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of the State of Washington, John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol, Robert W Ferguson and others
Intervenor Defendant:
Alliance for Gun Responsibility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Eddie Hatch, Jr., et al v. J. P. Stadtmueller
as 23-1481
Petitioner:
EDDIE L. HATCH, JR. and MICHELLE DAVIS-HATCH
Respondent:
J. P. STADTMUELLER
Interested Party:
CITY OF MILWAUKEE, TOM BARRETT, JEFF HANEWALL 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.
