Cases 61 - 70 of 12,940
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv02196
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1738 A The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
Gomez v. Elite Labor Services Weeklys, Ltd., et al.
as 24-3261
Plaintiff:
FERNANDO GOMEZ, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public
Defendant:
ELITE LABOR SERVICES WEEKLYS, LTD., an Illinois corporation, ELITE STAFFING, INC., an Illinois corporation and SOUTHLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a California corporation
Verduzco-Gomez v. Garland
as 24-3245
Petitioner:
MARIO ALBERTO VERDUZCO-GOMEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Alas Gomez, et al. v. Garland
as 24-3276
Petitioner:
FATIMA DEL ROSARIO ALAS GOMEZ and AXEL ALESSANDRO MONGE ALAS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv04234
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Montoya Gomez v. Garland
as 24-3242
Petitioner:
JOSE LUIS MONTOYA GOMEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Flores-Gomez v. Bennett
as 2:2024cv00710
Petitioner:
Juan Flores-Gomez
Respondent:
Jason Bennett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Gomez v. City of St. Louis et al
as 4:2024cv00709
Plaintiff:
Otoniel Gomez
Defendant:
City of St. Louis, Com. Jennifer Clemons-Abdullah, Dep Com. Unknown Ross and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
United States of America v. Berganza (Paredes-Cordova)
as 24-1365
Defendant:
ISAIAS TURCIOS, HORACIO GABRIEL BOTERO, OTONIEL TURCIOS-MARROQUIN and others
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Gomez v. Andes
as 3:2024cv03032
Petitioner:
John B. Gomez
Respondent:
Warden Chance Andes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
