Cases 61 - 70 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv05065
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Lacy v. Doe et al
as 1:2026cv08565
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Lacy
Defendant:
John Doe and City of Chicago
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv08563
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Metropolis Big John Super Store, Inc. v. M/V BROOKE MCKENZIE et al
as 5:2026cv00207
Plaintiff:
Metropolis Big John Super Store, Inc.
Defendant:
M/V BROOKE MCKENZIE, M/V Charles L. Strait, M/V CHRISTOPHER D WILSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv09007
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv05779
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
VAN HORN et al v. USA
as 1:2026cv01040
Plaintiff:
DANIEL F. VAN HORN and ELIZABETH A. PARISH
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
v. Summitbridge Wealth Management, LLC et al
as 5:2026mc50814
Defendant:
Summitbridge Wealth Management, LLC, Arna Premier, Property Solutions, LLC and others
Receiver:
Stephen J. Donell
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01459
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Reed v. Ament et al
as 1:2026cv02004
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Reed
Defendant:
Todd Ament and Kimberly Ament
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
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.
