Cases 31 - 40 of 4,526
Bailey v. Albright
as 6:2024cv00240
Plaintiff:
Markiesha (Mark) Bailey
Defendant:
Judge Alan D. Albright
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bailey v. Paxton
as 6:2024cv00236
Plaintiff:
Markiesha (Mark) Bailey
Defendant:
Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thiels v. Berger et al
as 4:2024cv01668
Plaintiff:
Daniel Thiels
Defendant:
William J. Berger, Robert L. Lane, Nora Mead Brownell and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00481
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Haukohl v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
as 4:2024cv01627
Plaintiff:
Mark Fehrs Haukohl
Defendant:
Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania d/b/a University of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Bello v. Johnson
as 4:2024cv00363
Petitioner:
Olamide Olatayo Bello
Respondent:
Mark Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Moore v. David George Hilburn et al
as 4:2024cv01576
Plaintiff:
Denver Kyle Moore
Defendant:
David George Hilburn, Anjelica Harris, E. R. Turnbull and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ortega v. Cally Consulting, PLLC
as 5:2024cv00439
Plaintiff:
Mark Anthony Ortega
Defendant:
Cally Consulting, PLLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Ortega v. Fields et al
as 5:2024cv00440
Plaintiff:
Mark Anthony Ortega
Defendant:
Daniel Gilbert Fields and Eric Doe
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Consensys Software Inc. v. Gensler et al
as 4:2024cv00369
Plaintiff:
Consensys Software Inc.
Defendant:
Gary Gensler, Caroline A. Crenshaw, Jaime E. Lizarraga and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
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.
