Cases 11 - 20 of 369
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00504
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01343
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00032
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00356
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701 Maritime Subsidy Board
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv00276
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
NADA et al v. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES et al
as 1:2024cv00206
Plaintiff:
HAZIM NADA and LORD ENERGY SA
Defendant:
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, ARIAF STUDIES AND RESEARCH LLC, ABU DHABI NATIONAL OIL COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2024cv00205
Not Yet Classified:
HAZIM NADA, LORD ENERGY SA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES and others
Defendant:
NO PARTY
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv01261
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Safarov, et al. v. Garland
as 24-93
Petitioner:
KAMIL SAFAROV, KAMRAN SAFAROV, EMIR SAFAROV and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Chucuri-Carguachi v. Garland
as 24-2
Petitioner:
SEGUNDO MIGUEL CHUCURI-CARGUACHI, EMIR ETHAN CHUCURI-DELGADO and ENMA VICTORIA DELGADO-BUNAY
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
