Cases 51 - 60 of 60
Robinson v. USA
as 1:2010cv00614
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Steven Robinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
HIP HEALTH PLAN OF F, et al v. SCHERING-PLOUGH, et al
as 2:2001cv01652
Plaintiff:
HIP HEALTH PLAN OF FLORIDA, INC. , Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
Consol_plaintiff:
AMY REICHERT , GREAT LAKES HEALTH PLAN, INC. , ROSEEN and others
Pecial_master:
STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY
Defendant:
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Robinson v. Rubenstein et al
as 2:2010cv00111
Plaintiff:
Steven Robinson
Defendant:
Jim Rubenstein, David Ballard, James McCloud and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FUREY v. BINDER et al
as 2:2009cv04507
Plaintiff:
KEVIN FUREY
Defendant:
CARL BINDER, HARVEY, DOUGLAS SEGARS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
FUREY v. BINDER et al
as 2:2009cv03204
Plaintiff:
KEVIN FUREY
Defendant:
CARL BINDER, HARVEY, DOUGLAS SEGARS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Robinson v. City of Atlanta et al
as 1:2008cv03353
Plaintiff:
Steven Robinson
Defendant:
City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Others Unknown and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Phillix Sinclair v. Superior Logistics Services, Inc. et al
as 2:2007cv06967
Plaintiff:
Phillix Sinclair
Defendant:
Superior Logistics Services, Inc., Steven Robinson and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Robinson v. Payant
as 1:2007cv09467
Petitioner:
Steven Robinson
Respondent:
Leo Payant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
USA v. Steven Robinson
as 07-3332
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
STEVEN ROBINSON
FURR V VA
as 06-3274
Respondent:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Petitioner:
Maurice Sherrod, Sanford Wezner, Steven Robinson 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.
