Cases 41 - 50 of 391
Vazquez-Diaz v. Doe et al
as 1:2022cv03315
Plaintiff:
Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz
Defendant:
John Doe, Beard, Monge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Vazquez v. United States of America
as 1:2022cv02961
Plaintiff:
Edwin Vazquez
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Vazquez v. St. Mary's Healthcare
as 1:2022cv00317
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Vazquez
Defendant:
St. Mary's Healthcare
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02177
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Vazquez Carbuccia v. State of New York et al
as 1:2022cv00196
Plaintiff:
Christopher Javier Vazquez Carbuccia
Defendant:
State of New York and Schenectady County Family Court
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2022cv01225
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Vazquez et al v. Jeflo & Co. LTD. et al
as 1:2022cv01215
Plaintiff:
Daniel Vazquez
Defendant:
JEFLO & CO. LTD. doing business as Royale, Joshua Berman, David Weakley and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Vazquez v. City of New York et al
as 1:2022cv00510
Plaintiff:
Robbin Vazquez
Defendant:
City of New York, Obson Cesar, Alfredo Brewster and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tian v. Top Food Trading Inc et al
as 1:2022cv00345
Plaintiff:
Qun Tian, Chunyan Dong, Kai Lu and others
Defendant:
Top Food Trading Inc, Jane Doe 1 aka A Qiao, John Doe 1 aka A De and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv06017
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
