Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv09605
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Johnny Procopio, et al v. Arizona Division of Child Supp, et al
as 21-16010
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, named as 45 CFR 302.34 Maricopa County Arizona, STATE OF NEBRASKA, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, named as 42 654(3) Arizona Department of Economic Security Child Support Enforcement Services and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHNNY RAY PROCOPIO
Plaintiff / Appellee:
STATE OF ARIZONA
Louis Cassise v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 20-72900
Respondent:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, MICHAEL CIMINO, Maricopa County, Arizona Adult Probation and ANEESHA GAINES, Maricopa County, Arizona Adult Probation
Petitioner:
LOUIS JOSEPH CASSISE
Frank Heindel v. Marci Andino
as 19-1204
Defendant / Appellee:
SCOTT MOSELY, Member of the South Carolina State Election Commission, in his official capacity, BILLY WAY, JR., Chair of the South Carolina State Election Commission, in his official capacity, MARCI ANDINO, Executive Director of the South Carolina State Election Commission, in her official capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FRANK HEINDEL and PHIL P. LEVENTIS
Amicus Curiae:
MAGGIE TOULOUSE OLIVER, Secretary of State for New Mexico, DUNCAN A. BUELL, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering and NCR Chair of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, JOSEPH R. KINIRY, Principal Scientist, Galois, and Principled CEO and Chief Scientist, Free & Fair and others
MELENDRES et al v. ARPAIO et al
as 1:2010mc00102
Plaintiff:
MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, DAVID RODRIGUEZ and others
Defendant:
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
Cause Of Action: Motion to Compel
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.
