Cases 41 - 50 of 1,346
Ifeji v. Garland
as 24-484
Defendant:
BRETT EISELE, central pinal justice court precinct 3 judge et al., Central Pinal Justice Court Precinct 3 HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, MARIAN BROWN, dallas county sherrif et al., DALLAS COUNTY SHERRIFS OFFICE HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, GLENN HEGAR, texas secretary of state et al., TEXAS COMPTROLLERS OFFICE HEIRS AND ASSIGNS and others
Plaintiff:
JAZZLYN SHABERA IFEJI, a Mooress beneficiary EMPRESS JAZLIN TRUST A Empress, Admiral, Mariner A, Merchant, Piloter Nations a private Moor aboriginal texan national territory of Spain, JAZZLYN SHABERA IFEJI ESTATE ET. AL., beneficiary, JOSEPH EDDIE PRYOR ESTATE ET AL., beneficiary JOSEPH EDDIE PRYOR et al. and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-7010
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Leopold et al v. U.S. Department of the Army
as 1:2024cv01496
Plaintiff:
Jason Leopold and Bloomberg L.P.
Defendant:
U.S. Department of the Army
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
PEARCE v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
as 1:2024cv00520
Plaintiff:
REBA ABRAHAM PEARCE
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Right to Privacy Act
Defend Arlington, et al v. DOD, et al
as 24-5026
Plaintiff:
Defend Arlington, Save Southern Heritage Florida, Friends of Judah P. Benjamin Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and others
Defendant:
United States Department of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin, III, William Laplante and others
Harris v. Department of the Army United States Claims Service
as 4:2024cv00578
Plaintiff:
Marquis Lamont Harris
Defendant:
Department of the Army United States Claims Service
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Greer v. Wormuth et al
as 3:2024cv00614
Plaintiff:
Roger E. Greer
Defendant:
Christine Wormuth and Department of the Army
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
