Cases 81 - 90 of 150
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00520
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Singh et al v. Trump et al
as 3:2018cv01912
Defendant:
Field Office Dir. Richard L Miller, Richard Ives, Ronald D Vitiello and others
Plaintiff:
Gurpreet Singh and Pachattar Singh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 bb
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2018cv01806
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Gurpreet Singh, et al v. National Railroad Passenger Co, et al
as 18-16683
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GURPREET SINGH, Individually, and as Successor in Interest on behalf of heirs and Estate of Amarjit Singh, Deceased, BALWINDER KAUR, SUMANDEEP KAUR and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, a District of Columbia corporation, DBA Amtrak, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Utah corporation and KEVIN GNIADEK
Gurpreet Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, III
as 18-72293
Petitioner:
GURPREET SINGH
Respondent:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
Singh v. Session
as 18-2219
Petitioner:
Gurpreet Singh, AKA Gopi Thap
Respondent:
Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SINGH et al
as 4:2018cv00143
Defendant:
KAMALJIT SINGH, GURPREET SINGH, AMRINDER SINGH and others
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00355
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv01233
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv06882
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
