Cases 11 - 20 of 52
PENMAN v. MORIN
as 1:2019cv00545
Petitioner:
ROGER PENMAN
Respondent:
JEFFREY MORIN
Not Classified By Court:
MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL - HABEAS CASES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BELANGER v. USA
as 1:2019cv00357
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
ROGER BELANGER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
FUSCO v. HAYNES et al
as 2:2018cv00290
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY J FUSCO
Undetermined:
MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL - NON PRISONER IFP CASES
Defendant:
KIM E DAVIS, KATIE DOHERTY, NOEL L HAYNES and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
WELCH v. CITY OF BIDDEFORD et al
as 2:2018cv00160
Plaintiff:
JOCELYNE WELCH
Defendant:
CITY OF BIDDEFORD , ROGER P BEAUPRE , EDWARD DEXTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHNSON v. PERELANDRA S/V et al
as 1:2018cv00034
Plaintiff:
ROGER JOHNSON
Defendant:
PERELANDRA S/V and ESTATE OF LARRY FLEMMING
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333
ROGERS v. JOHNSON
as 2:2017cv00494
Plaintiff:
LAURIE ROGERS
Defendant:
JAMES A JOHNSON, JR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ROGERS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER
as 1:2017cv00469
Plaintiff:
VALERIE H ROGERS
Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
PUSHOR v. MOUNT WASHINGTON OBSERVATORY INC
as 2:2017cv00354
Plaintiff:
ROGER PUSHOR
Defendant:
MOUNT WASHINGTON OBSERVATORY INC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
JOHNSON et al v. CITY OF BIDDEFORD et al
as 2:2017cv00264
Plaintiff:
SUSAN JOHNSON and DERRICK THOMPSON
Defendant:
CITY OF BIDDEFORD, BIDDEFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HUOT v. MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES et al
as 1:2017cv00263
Plaintiff:
SAFRON HUOT
Defendant:
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES, MONTANA SUPREME COURT, DEER LODGE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA and others
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.
