Cases 31 - 40 of 70
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv00556
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Hejazi v. Esper et al
as 6:2019cv00149
Defendant:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Mark Esper and United States Department of the Army
Plaintiff:
Hamid Michael Hejazi
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 791
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2018cv02127
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00193
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
M.W., et al v. U.S. Department of the Army, et al
as 18-15242
Plaintiff - Appellant:
M.W., by and through her guardian ad litem, Hope W. and AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MARK. T. ESPER, Secretary of the Army, in his official capacity, UNITED STATES ARMY FAMILY AND MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS and others
Durr v. United States Department of the Army et al
as 3:2017cv50276
Plaintiff:
Stephen Durr
Defendant:
United States Department of the Army , Board For Correction Of Military Records and Office of the Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 10 U.S.C. § 1552
Chahal et al v. Seamands et al
as 2:2017cv12656
Plaintiff:
Gurjiwan Singh Chahal and Arjan Singh Ghotra
Defendant:
Thomas Seamands , Robert L. Caslen, Jr. , United States Millitary Academy and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
WILLIAMS v. FANNING et al
as 3:2016cv05693
Plaintiff:
MACAULAY WILLIAMS
Defendant:
ERIC FANNING and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2016cv00322
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2016cv61800
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0633
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.
