Cases 51 - 60 of 180,839
NetChoice, LLC v. Carr
as 1:2024cv02485
Plaintiff:
NetChoice, LLC
Defendant:
Georgia Attorney Gen Christopher M. Carr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04077
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv60958
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Lee v. O'Malley
as 5:2024cv00041
Plaintiff:
Faith Lee
Defendant:
Martin J. O'Malley
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration and United States Attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv11474
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04034
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04035
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04036
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04044
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
DON et al v. Jaddou et al
as 1:2024cv04050
Plaintiff:
THUSHAN DON, CHRISHANI MERENNEGE DON, THARUKSHA KIRIELDENIYAGE DON and others
Defendant:
Ur Jaddou, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and US Attorney General Merrick Garland
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
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.
