Cases 71 - 80 of 215
Dennis King et al v. Susan Morrow
as 2:2018mc00002
Defendant:
Blaine Beehler, Michele Beehler, Andrew Craigie and others
Movant:
Garfield County Public Hospital District No. 1, a municipal corporation
Plaintiff:
Dennis King and Tricia King
United States of America v. David M. Morrow
as 2:2017cv09274
Garnishee:
Fidelity Investments, Glazer Capital, LLC, JP Morgan Chases Bank and others
Defendant:
David M. Morrow
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Howard v. Ranum et al
as 2:2017at00904
Plaintiff:
Semaj Howard
Defendant:
Robert Ranum, Christopher Barney, Nathan Daniel and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Howard v. Ranum, et al.
as 2:2017cv01807
Defendant:
Travis Monahan, Robert Ranum, Rivera and others
Plaintiff:
Semaj Howard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Stewart v. City of Oakland, et al
as 3:2017cv04478
Plaintiff:
Juleana Stewart
Defendant:
City of Oakland, Sean Whent, Frank Morrow and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Marilyn Bryant v. BNSF Railway Company et al
as 5:2017cv01523
Defendant:
BNSF Railway Company, Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., Edwin R. Brunmeier and others
Plaintiff:
Marilyn Bryant
Morrow v. Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.
as 2:2017at00571
Plaintiff:
Robyn Morrow
Defendant:
Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 704
Morrow v. Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.
as 2:2017cv01160
Plaintiff:
Robyn Morrow
Defendant:
Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Frederick et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated
as 5:2017cv02171
Plaintiff:
Scott Frederick , Charles Poon , Andrea Hogan and others
Defendant:
Qualcomm Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
Frederick et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated
as 3:2017cv00377
Plaintiff:
Scott Frederick , Charles Poon , Andrea Hogan and others
Defendant:
Qualcomm Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0002
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.
