Cases 11 - 20 of 20
(PC) Booth v. Carrol
as 1:2020cv01067
Defendant:
L. Carrol
Plaintiff:
Patrick J. Booth
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC)Booth v. Williams College et al
as 2:2020cv00265
Defendant:
Williams College and Standard Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
Patrick J. Booth
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Patrick J. Booth v. A. Gaffney et al
as 2:2018cv05655
Defendant:
M. Fekrat, J. Gonzales, Sergeant M. Fernandaez and others
Plaintiff:
Patrick J. Booth and Patrick J Booth
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Booth v. Frazier, et al.
as 1:2018cv00670
Plaintiff:
Patrick J Booth
Defendant:
Brett Frazier, David Rogers, Robert Poythress and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Booth v. Frazier et al
as 4:2018cv01739
Plaintiff:
Patrick J Booth
Defendant:
Brett Frazier, David Rogers, Robert Poythress and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOND v. MOHAWK CARPET TRANSPORTATION OF GEORGIA, LLC et al
as 2:2016cv04541
Plaintiff:
ALICIA BOND
Defendant:
MOHAWK CARPET TRANSPORTATION OF GEORGIA, LLC and PATRICK A. BOOTH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Halek et al
as 3:2014cv01106
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Jason A. Halek, Joshua D Spivey, Patrick J Booths and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Boothe et al v. Marshall Browning Hospital et al
as 3:2012cv00025
Plaintiff:
Patrick E. Boothe and Judy Boothe
Defendant:
Marshall Browning Hospital and K. Rajasekhara Warrier, M.D.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Patrick Booth v. Attorney General of the State, et al
as 09-15653
Petitioner - Appellant:
PATRICK J. BOOTH
Respondent - Appellee:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and BENEDETTI
Booth v. Attorney General of the State of California et al
as 1:2008cv01134
Petitioner:
Patrick J. Booth
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of California and Benedetti
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
