Cases 71 - 80 of 172
ROTHWELL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2017cv02969
Petitioner:
DARRELL ROTHWELL
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
In Re: Darrell Rothwell
as 17-1736
Petitioner:
DARRELL ROTHWELL
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mumin v. Frakes et al
as 4:2017cv03032
Defendant:
Todd Bahensky, Steena Beltz, Valorie Benedixen and others
Plaintiff:
Dukhan Mumin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rodriguez v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al
as 4:2017cv03004
Defendant:
Wayne Chandler, Scott R. Frakes, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and others
Plaintiff:
Jose E. Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Phillips v. Frakes et al
as 8:2016cv00554
Defendant:
John Chavez, Scott Frakes, James Rocke and others
Plaintiff:
Jarrod Phillips
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Epp et al v. Frakes et al
as 4:2016cv03176
Defendant:
Todd Bahensky, Steena Beltz, Valorie Benedixen and others
Plaintiff:
William Epp and Dukhan Mumin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BRIT UW, LIMITED v. ROTHWELL ASSOCIATES, LLC et al
as 2:2016cv07843
Plaintiff:
BRIT UW, LIMITED
Defendant:
ROTHWELL ASSOCIATES, LLC, RA SHAH BUILDERS LLC, AMIT VINOD SHAH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BRIT UW, LIMITED v. ROTHWELL ASSOCIATES, LLC et al
as 1:2016cv07843
Plaintiff:
BRIT UW, LIMITED
Defendant:
ROTHWELL ASSOCIATES, LLC, RA SHAH BUILDERS LLC, AMIT VINOD SHAH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rothwell v. Superior Courts of Washington et al
as 2:2016cv00285
Plaintiff:
Lawrence John Rothwell
Defendant:
Superior Courts of Washington, State of Washington, County of Spokane and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROTHWELL v. HARPER et al
as 1:2016cv04569
Plaintiff:
CHRISTINA ROTHWELL
Defendant:
RONALD HARPER, WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. , JOHN DOE(S) 1-5 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
