Cases 91 - 100 of 869
Tommy Quintier, Jr. v. Doug Ducey, et al
as 21-16096
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TOMMY QUINTIER, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
DOUG DUCEY, Governor and STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party in Interest/Respondent
Gary Eisenmann v. Doug Ducey, et al
as 21-16086
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GARY LANE EISENMANN
Defendant / Appellee:
DOUG DUCEY, Governor and STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party in Interest/Respondent
Matthew Egler v. USA, et al
as 21-15940
Defendant / Appellee:
SECRET SERVICE, MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, PAUL PENZONE and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MATTHEW SILVANUS EGLER
Miguel Rivera v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 21-15931
Defendant / Appellee:
DANIEL SEGO, Mr., facility healthcare administrator, DAVID SHINN, Director, CAMERON and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MIGUEL RIVERA
Allen et al v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00933
Defendant:
Centurion Healthcare, Doug Ducey, David Shinn and others
Plaintiff:
Mario Alexander Aguilar, James L Phillips, Anor M Peterson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Quinn v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00973
Defendant:
Centurion Healthcare, Daniel Town, David Shinn and others
Plaintiff:
David Quinn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thorson v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00974
Defendant:
Centurion Healthcare, David Shinn, Trinity Food Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Thorson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Labash v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00970
Defendant:
Centurion Healthcare, Daniel Town, Doug Ducey and others
Plaintiff:
Sean Timothy Labash
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Aguilar v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00971
Defendant:
Centurion Healthcare, Daniel Town, David Shinn and others
Plaintiff:
Mario Alexander Aguilar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Peterson v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00972
Defendant:
Centurion Healthcare, David Shinn, Trinity Food Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Anor M Peterson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
