Cases 41 - 50 of 12,773
United States v. Nathan Blakley
as 24-1929
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Nathan Blakley, also known as Nathan Blakely
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00132
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Brent v. State of Oregon
as 3:2024cv00745
Plaintiff:
Nathan Z. Brent
Defendant:
State of Oregon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Frank Townsend, et al v. Bob Watson, et al
as 24-1926
Plaintiff:
Frank Townsend, Reverend, Lewis T. Daniels, Charlie P. Reedy and others
Defendant:
Bob Watson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the El Dorado School District No. 15, a Public Body Corporate, El Dorado School District #15, Board of Education of the, Michael Meeks, Member, Board of Education, El Dorado School District No. 15 and others
Intervenor:
Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas State Board of Education
McVey v. Attorney General of the State of Montana
as 9:2024cv00056
Petitioner:
Michael Nathan Shae McVey
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Montana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER et al v. BECERRA
as 1:2024cv01258
Plaintiff:
ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER, COLUMBIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, GLEN FALLS HOSPITAL and others
Defendant:
XAVIER BECERRA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00459
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
United States of America v. Brown
as 24-2688
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
NATHAN CODY BROWN
Anesha Parker v. Roseberte Clervil, et al
as 24-11293
Plaintiff:
ANESHA PARKER
Defendant:
ROSEBERTE CLERVIL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 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.
