Cases 51 - 60 of 139
Robert Noel v. Dana Nessel, et al
as 21-2660
Defendant / Appellee:
GEORGE BEST, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, CARRIE GUERRERO, Bay Area Narcotics Enforcement Team, TIM LARRISON, Bay Area Narcotics Enforcement Team and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT NOEL
Kenneth Thompson, et al v. Gretchen Whitmer, et al
as 21-2602
Defendant / Appellee:
JONEIGH S. KHALDUN, in her official capacity as Chief Medical Executive and Chief Deputy Director for Health, JOSEPH GASPER, in his offical capacity as Director of the Michigan State Police, DANA NESSEL, in her official capacity as Michigan Attorney General and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID A. ARNDT, HAPPY LAW, DARLENE DOWLING THOMPSON and others
Marta Jo Stampone, et al v. Brittian Amann, et al
as 21-1881
Defendant / Appellee:
ALLIE C. SAWYER, LOU ANDRIOTTI, SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FREDERICK STAMPONE and MARTA JO STAMPONE, f/k/a Hieshetter
Nessel v. Lambert's Vintage Wines, LLC
as 2:2021cv11016
Plaintiff:
Dana Nessel
Defendant:
Lambert's Vintage Wines, LLC
Nessel v. Taste Wine, LLC
as 1:2021cv00370
Plaintiff:
Dana Nessel
Defendant:
Taste Wine, LLC doing business as Taste Wine Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Nessel v. Amorosa
as 1:2021cv00372
Plaintiff:
Dana Nessel
Defendant:
Villa Amorosa
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Nessel v. Schmidt Family Vineyards, LLC
as 1:2021cv00375
Plaintiff:
Dana Nessel
Defendant:
Schmidt Family Vineyards, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Jeffrey Lapinske, et al v. City of Grand Haven, MI, et al
as 21-1309
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES LAPINSKE, CASSANDRA LAPINSKE, JEFFREY LAPINSKE and others
Intervenor / Appellee:
DANA NESSEL, ex rel, People of the State of Michigan
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF GRAND HAVEN, MI
Max Birmingham v. Dana Nessel
as 21-1297
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAX BIRMINGHAM
Defendant / Appellee:
DANA NESSEL
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.
