Cases 121 - 130 of 5,361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00057
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
United States of America v. Prince
as 3:2024cv00017
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Aaron Prince
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
Robert Lee Johnson v. City of Pomona et al
as 2:2024cv00181
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Johnson
Defendant:
City of Pomona, Michael Ellis, Michel Ellis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Prince Bixler v. USA
as 24-5018
Petitioner:
PRINCE BERNARD BIXLER
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JONES et al v. TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC. et al
as 1:2024cv00010
Plaintiff:
ALEX JONES, ALICIA GILLEN, ALYSON MCGILL and others
Defendant:
TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC., TITLEMAX OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., TMX FINANCE LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
Andrew Prince v. Princess Cruise Lines, LTD.
as 2:2024cv00074
Plaintiff:
Andrew Prince
Defendant:
Princess Cruise Lines, LTD.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
North End Chamber of Commerce, Inc. et al v. City of Boston
as 1:2024cv10039
Plaintiff:
North End Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 119 Salem St., Inc. doing business as Ristorante Euno, Antico Forno, Inc. doing business as Antico Forno and others
Defendant:
City of Boston
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00001
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00001
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01804
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
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.
