Cases 71 - 80 of 32,638
Duarte Cabrera v. Garland
as 24-1352
Petitioner:
RAFAEL DUARTE CABRERA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Das et al v. Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank et al
as 1:2024cv10931
Plaintiff:
Abhijit Das, Mitra Das, Dr Mukti Das and others
Defendant:
Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank, David Wallace, John Pratt, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Kline v. Primis Bank
as 1:2024cv10929
Plaintiff:
Robert Kline
Defendant:
Primis Bank
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
Desmond v. Wallin
as 1:2024cv10411
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference
US v. Pierluisi-Isern
as 24-1321
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
WALTER PIERLUISI-ISERN
Interested Party:
US DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Ass'n to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihooods, et al v. Town of Bar Harbor, et al
as 24-1317
Plaintiff:
ASSOCIATION TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT LOCAL LIVELIHOODS, BH PIERS, LLC, GOLDEN ANCHOR, LC, d/b/a Harborside Hotel and others
Interested Party:
PENOBSCOT BAY AND RIVER PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Defendant:
BAR HARBOR, ME, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Maine
Cross Defendant:
CHARLES SIDMAN
Ass'n to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihooods, et al v. Town of Bar Harbor, et al
as 24-1318
Plaintiff:
ASSOCIATION TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT LOCAL LIVELIHOODS, BH PIERS, LLC, GOLDEN ANCHOR, LC, d/b/a Harborside Hotel and others
Cross Plaintiff:
PENOBSCOT BAY AND RIVER PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Defendant:
BAR HARBOR, ME, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Maine
Cross Defendant:
CHARLES SIDMAN
Ruiz-Romero v. Santiago-Colon
as 24-1333
Plaintiff:
ERNESTO RUIZ-ROMERO
Defendant:
PABLO SANTIAGO-COLON
US v. Yu
as 24-1325
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
HAOYANG YU, a/k/a Jack Yu, a/k/a Harry Yu, a/k/a Jack Tricon
Interested Party:
ANALOG DEVICES, INC.
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.
