Cases 51 - 58 of 58
USA v. THE PREMISES KNOWN AS: ONE MOTOROLA CELLULAR TELEPHONE MODEL #H98XAH6JR5AN BEARING S/N 364VKY0GP6 WITH BOOST MOBILE SERVICE
as 2:2010mj01707
Defendant:
THE PREMISES KNOWN AS: ONE MOTOROLA CELLULAR TELEPHONE MODEL #H98XAH6JR5AN BEARING S/N 364VKY0GP6 WITH BOOST MOBILE SERVICE (1)
Plaintiff:
USA
THE PREMISES KNOWN AS: ONE MOTOROLA CELLULAR TELEPHONE MODEL #H98XAH6JR5AN BEARING S/N 364VKX0CXD WITH BOOST MOBILE SERVICE
as 2:2010mj01708
Defendant:
THE PREMISES KNOWN AS: ONE MOTOROLA CELLULAR TELEPHONE MODEL #H98XAH6JR5AN BEARING S/N 364VKX0CXD WITH BOOST MOBILE SERVICE (1)
Plaintiff:
USA
Marks v. Sprint Corporation et al
as 4:2009cv06043
Plaintiff:
Antolin Andrew Marks
Defendant:
Sprint Corporation, Nextel Corporation and Boost Mobile Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
United States of America v. Boost Mobile SIM Card numbered 000823914479300
as 1:2009mc00162
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Boost Mobile SIM Card numbered 000823914479300
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv03160
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity action.
Type:
Other Statutes
United States of America v. The Boost Mobile Motorola i425 cellular telephone retrieved from Harvel Harris at the time of his arrest on May 19, 2009, in Chicago, Illinois
as 1:2009mc00393
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
The Boost Mobile Motorola i425 cellular telephone retrieved from Harvel Harris at the time of his arrest on May 19, 2009, in Chicago, Illinois
United States of America v. Boost Mobile Cell phone, Serial No. 364VJGHRR5
as 1:2009mc00168
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Boost Mobile Cell phone, Serial No. 364VJGHRR5
United States of America v. Boost Mobile Cell Phone, serial no. 364VJU17VT
as 1:2009mc00167
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Boost Mobile Cell Phone, serial no. 364VJU17VT
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.
