Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Oklahoma City City of v. 100 Foot Wide Continuous Extended Term Easement and right-of-way for public utility water pipelines et al
as 5:2020cv00029
Defendant:
Elnora L Deer, Sally Arlene Mann, Barbara Judkins and others
Plaintiff:
Oklahoma City City of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1358
City of Oklahoma City v. 100 Foot Wide Continuous Extended Term Easement and Other Related Pump Station Continuous Extended Term Easements and rights-of-way for public utility water pipelines et al
as 5:2020cv00020
Defendant:
Christian Bartholomew Switch, Herbert Joe White, Nancy Gay White Mann and others
Plaintiff:
City of Oklahoma City
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1358
Oklahoma City City of v. 100 Foot Wide Continuous Extended Term Easement and right-of-way for public utility water pipelines et al
as 5:2020cv00021
Defendant:
George Scott Winton, Jr, Goldie Ann Spoon, Lonnie Allen Neash and others
Plaintiff:
Oklahoma City City of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1358
City of Oklahoma City v. 100 Foot Wide Continuous Extended Term Easement and right-of-way for public utility water pipelines et al
as 5:2020cv00019
Defendant:
Georgia Anne Gibson Pohocsucut, Gibson, Flora J Hood Howe and others
Plaintiff:
City of Oklahoma City
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1358
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. KENNEDY et al
as 2:2018cv01265
Plaintiff:
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendant:
ALVIANETTE GIBSON KENNEDY , JOCELYN GIBSOON , CHARLES GIBSON and others
Movant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Oklahoma City City of v. 100 Foot Wide Permanent Easement and right-of-way for public utility water pipelines et al
as 5:2015cv00274
Plaintiff:
Oklahoma City City of
Defendant:
100 Foot Wide Permanent Easement and right-of-way for public utility water pipelines, United States of America , Georgia Anne Pohocsucut Gibson and others
Cause Of Action: 25 U.S.C. § 640
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.
