Cases 31 - 40 of 1,511
Hyatt v. Vidal
as 1:2024cv00064
Plaintiff:
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Defendant:
Katherine K. Vidal
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Non-Infringement- Patent Applicant is Dissatisfied with PTO Decision
UNITED STATES v. 0.1785 acres of land, more or less, situate in Chesapeake, Virginia et al
as 2:2024cv00023
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
MSF Investors II, LLC, Arcadia Equity Associates, City Of Chesapeake and others
Hyatt v. Vidal
as 1:2024cv00060
Plaintiff:
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Defendant:
Katherine K. Vidal
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Non-Infringement- Patent Applicant is Dissatisfied with PTO Decision
Hubbard v. Tiller
as 7:2024cv00015
Petitioner:
Gerald Wayne Hubbard
Respondent:
Craig P. Tiller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hubbard v. Tiller
as 2:2024cv00013
Petitioner:
Gerald Wayne Hubbard
Respondent:
Craig P. Tiller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hyatt v. Vidal
as 1:2024cv00022
Plaintiff:
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Defendant:
Katherine K. Vidal
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Non-Infringement- Patent Applicant is Dissatisfied with PTO Decision
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00001
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Hyatt v. Vidal
as 1:2023cv01762
Plaintiff:
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Defendant:
Katherine K. Vidal
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Non-Infringement- Patent Applicant is Dissatisfied with PTO Decision
Harrold v. Hagen
as 3:2023cv00866
Plaintiff:
Richard P Harrold
Defendant:
Lewis J Hagen, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Hyatt v. Vidal
as 1:2023cv01728
Plaintiff:
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Defendant:
Katherine K. Vidal
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Non-Infringement- Patent Applicant is Dissatisfied with PTO Decision
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.
