Cases 1 - 10 of 1,937
State of Tennessee et al v. Cardona et al
as 2:2024cv00072
Plaintiff:
State of Tennessee, Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Ohio and others
Defendant:
Miguel Cardona and United States Department of Education
Intervenor:
Christian Educators Association International, A.C. and Peggy June Griffin
Petitioner:
State of New Jersey
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Thielman, et al. v. Kotek, et al.
as 24-3857
Defendant / Appellee:
DENISE GALE FJORDBECK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff:
MARC THIELMAN, Senator DENNIS LINTHICUM, Senator KIM THATCHER and others
Defendant:
TINA KOTEK, in her official and personal capacities as Governor of Oregon, LAVONNE GRIFFIN-VALADE, in her official and personal capacities as Oregon Secretary of State and MOLLY WOON, in her official and personal capacities as Elections Director
Griffin v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith Inc
as 1:2024cv02726
Petitioner:
Nikita J. Griffin
Respondent:
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith Inc
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Application to Vacate Arbitration Award
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00218
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Bryant Griffin v. United States
as 24-2239
Petitioner:
Bryant Duane Griffin
Respondent:
United States of America
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv01471
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
US v. Griffin
as 24-1540
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
DANIEL J. GRIFFIN
Interested Party:
US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
US v. Griffin
as 24-1541
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
DANIEL J. GRIFFIN
Interested Party:
US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
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.
