Cases
Cases 11 - 20 of 241
Ifeji et al v. garland et al
as 1:2024cv00030
Plaintiff: Jazzlyn Shabera Ifeji, Jazzlyn Shabera Ifeji Estate et al., Joseph Eddie Pryor Estate et al. and others
Defendant: merrick garland attorney general et al., United States Department of Justice HEIRS AND ASSIGNS doing business as MERRICK GARLAND, andrew saul commissioner et al., Social Security Administration HEIRS AND ASSIGNS doing business as ANDREW SAUL, janet louise yellen secretary of the treasury et al., United States Department of the Treasury HEIRS AND ASSIGNS doing business as JANET LOUISE YELLEN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Motley v. Janae Rocquel Motley Estate
as 24-1
Plaintiff / Appellant: JANAE ROCQUEL MOTLEY
Defendant / Appellee: JANAE ROCQUEL MOTLEY ESTATE, beneficiary JANAE ROCQUEL MOTLEY, DYMARION RASHAD BROOKS ESTATE, beneficiary DYMARION RASHAD BROOKS, DERRION RASHAD BROOKS ESTATE, beneficiary DERRION RASHAD BROOKS and others
Robinson, Jr. v United States of America
as 1:2023cv01662
Plaintiff: Mr. Nicky T Robinson and Nicky T. Robinson, Jr.
Defendant: United States of America (United States Postal Service) and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2271 Federal Tort Claims Act
Mohammad Ahmed v. Charles Gable, IV, et al
as 23-5281
Plaintiff / Appellant: Mohammad Mokhtar Ahmed, A Natural Born United States Citizen, Honorable United States Marine, United States Marine Corps Veteran, a Service-Connected United States Veteran
Defendant / Appellee: Charles H. Gable, IV, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity, Person, Christopher A. Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a Person, in his official capacity, David M. Banning, a Colonel in the United States Marine Corps, in his official capacity; a Person and others
motley v. JaNae Rocquel Motley Estate et al et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2023cv10268
Plaintiff: janae rocquel motley
Defendant: JaNae Rocquel Motley Estate et al, Dymarion Rashad Brooks Estate et al, Derrion Rashad Brooks Estate et al and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
barclay et al v. dixon et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2023cv10272
Plaintiff: leshawn maurice barclay
Defendant: webb, jeremiah darnell Estate et al, barclay, noah sencer robert Estate et al, lynch, malakai levi Estate et al and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
David Mendez Argueta v. Doe et al
as 1:2023cv01521
Plaintiff: David The Estate of Mendez-Hernandez and David Mendez Argueta
Defendant: John Doe, United States Postal Service United States Postal Service doing business as USPS and United States Postal Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim - Personal Injury/Motor Vehicle
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-3404
Plaintiff / Appellant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Type: Civil Rights Jobs
PANFEROV v. BLINKEN et al
as 1:2023cv03249
Plaintiff: ALEXEY PANFEROV
Defendant: ANTONY J. BLINKEN, DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JIM MULLINAX and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
USA v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al
as 23-5203
Plaintiff / Appellee: United States of America, United States Department of Justice
Not Yet Classified: American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and others
Defendant / Appellant: Philip Morris USA Inc., formerly known as Philip Morris Incorporated
Defendant / Appellee: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Directly and as successor by merger to American Tobacco Company, Lorillard Tobacco Company and others
Intervenor / Appellee: Smithkline Beecham Corp., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., Pharmacia Corporation and others

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.


Why Is My Information Online?