Cases 41 - 50 of 52
Nathan Daniel Clark v. Tom Roy
as 12-1601
Petitioner:
Nathan Daniel Clark
Respondent:
Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections
Nathan Diggs v. Board of Corrections, et al
as 11-36076
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHAN DANIEL DIGGS
Defendant - Appellee:
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ROBIN SANDY, CAROLING MELINIE and others
Diggs v. Board of Corrections et al
as 1:2011cv00353
Plaintiff:
Nathan Daniel Diggs
Defendant:
Board of Corrections, Robin Sandy, Caroling Melinie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
E. Scott Frison, Jr. v. Equifax Information Service
as 11-1034
Plaintiff - Appellant:
E. SCOTT FRISON, JR. and LISA A. FRISON
Defendant - Appellee:
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, TRANS UNION LLC, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED and others
Defendant:
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
US v. Nathan Larson
as 10-4964
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
NATHAN DANIEL LARSON
Shawnee Milling Company v. Drake et al
as 5:2010cv00002
Plaintiff:
Shawnee Milling Company
Defendant:
Nathan Daniel Drake and Halley & Talbot Law Firm The
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
United States v. Larson
as 09-1465
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
NATHAN DANIEL LARSON
Board of Trustees of the Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Mizrahi Metals, Inc. et al
as 2:2009cv04715
Plaintiff:
Board of Trustees of the Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Board of Trustees of the Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Retirement Trust Fund and Board of Trustees of the Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Defined Contribution Retirement Plan
Defendant:
Mizrahi Metals, Inc., Nathan Daniel Mizrahi and Kathleen Mizrahi
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
Type:
Labor
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.
