Cases 51 - 60 of 707
Wilson v. Amick
as 1:2023cv01451
Plaintiff:
Matthew Wilson
Defendant:
Kenneth Amick
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lomax v. Starbucks Corporation
as 1:2023cv01426
Petitioner:
Matthew S. Lomax
Respondent:
Starbucks Corporation
Amicus Curiae:
Workers United
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Wilie et al v. Mendes-Ferreira
as 1:2023cv01396
Plaintiff:
Matthew (I) Wilie, Matthew Wilie and Rene Welch
Defendant:
Melissa Mendes-Ferreira
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death
Guerra v. Greco
as 1:2023cv01335
Plaintiff:
Stephen Eddy Guerra
Defendant:
No Named Defendant and Matthew Greco
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. State of Colorado et al
as 1:2023cv01312
Plaintiff:
Corey Williams
Defendant:
State of Colorado, Colorado Child Support Enforcement and Matthew Ryan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Harter v. Williams et al
as 1:2023cv01249
Plaintiff:
Matthew L. Harter
Defendant:
Dean Williams, Matthew Winden and Clinton Carr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gantt v. Johnson et al
as 1:2023cv01195
Plaintiff:
Joshua Gantt
Defendant:
James Johnson, Larry Winegardner, Thomas Little and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davidson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
as 1:2023cv00984
Plaintiff:
Matthew Davidson
Defendant:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Garza v. Winden
as 1:2023cv00938
Petitioner:
Albert R. Garza
Respondent:
Matthew Winden and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Whipple v. Barron et al
as 1:2023cv00882
Counter Defendant:
Thomas Whipple
Defendant:
Daniel E. Barron, Olga B.K. Barron, Jennifer C. Counselman 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.
