Cases 31 - 40 of 74
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 1:2021cv00273
Defendant:
NORRIS COCHRAN
Plaintiff:
SAINT LUKE'S-ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL, SOUTHERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER, BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER and others
Not Classified By Court:
MIDSTATE MEDICAL CENTER
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701
NORRIS v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
as 1:2020cv02737
Plaintiff:
JACK K. NORRIS, III
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
NELLSON v. U.S. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2020cv00788
Defendant:
GREGORY MIMS, KATHRYN ARRINGTON, PHILIP HLAVAC and others
Plaintiff:
EDWARD NELLSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
FISHER v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2020cv00584
Respondent:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Petitioner:
NORRIS LYNN FISHER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv03583
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
HOLDER v. BARR et al
as 1:2019cv03520
Defendant:
UTTAM DHILLON, KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, JOHN DOE and others
Plaintiff:
Norris G. Holder, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
AZUBUKO v. BURDMAN et al
as 1:2019cv02550
Defendant:
MASSACHUSETTS' SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT, ALL JURORS TO THE CASE, PAULA M. CAREY and others
Plaintiff:
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
as 1:2019cv00104
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Plaintiff:
NORRIS WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv01540
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 01DCC2439 WMATA (court jurisdiction)
FORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
as 1:2017cv02525
Plaintiff:
DELORES FORD, JANET WYLIE, ETHEL R. ARCHIE and others
Defendant:
STATE OF MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT and CHEVRON U.S.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
