Cases 91 - 100 of 132,064
Halloum et al v. Wells Fargo Nationa et al
as 2:2024cv01077
Plaintiff:
Yousif H. Halloum and Iman Y. Halloum
Defendant:
Wells Fargo Nationa, Clear Recon Corp and Wilmington Savings Fund Society
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv06867
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv01687
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Hensley v. Teets, et al
as 1:2024cv00171
Plaintiff:
Catherine Hensley, as Administratrix of the Estate of Christopher Hensley,
Defendant:
Michael R Teets, Michael G Elizondo, Seth D Summey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv04124
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Thomas v. Abbott et al
as 5:2024cv00665
Plaintiff:
Destry Earl Thomas
Defendant:
Governor Greg Abbott, Mag. Judge John W. Primomo, Judge H. F. Garcia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Barfell v. Team Honey Badger Dominos
as 1:2024cv00723
Plaintiff:
Thomas H L Barfell
Defendant:
Team Honey Badger Dominos
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Barfell v. AMP
as 1:2024cv00724
Plaintiff:
Thomas H L Barfell
Defendant:
AMP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Kenneth Newkirk v. Warden Artrip
as 24-6559
Plaintiff:
KENNETH H. NEWKIRK
Defendant:
WARDEN ARTRIP, INVESTIGATOR HARRIS, ASSISTANT WARDEN BLEVINS and others
Ball v. Citibank, N.A.
as 24-3640
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM H. BALL
Defendant:
CITIBANK, N.A., a New York Corporation, dba Sears Shop Your Way
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.
