Cases 81 - 90 of 151,914
Quinteros-Lainez, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2706
Petitioner:
MARIA DOLORES QUINTEROS-LAINEZ and MELVIN ESTIBEN MERCADO-QUINTEROS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Duran Marroquin v. Garland
as 24-2711
Petitioner:
CARLOS ALBERTO DURAN MARROQUIN
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Nava-Patricio v. Garland
as 24-2683
Petitioner:
YOVANNI NAVA-PATRICIO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Gante Cornejo, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2685
Petitioner:
YESENIA GANTE CORNEJO, FIDEL MENDOZA GANTE, RAMON MENDOZA GANTE and others
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
United Spinal Association, et al. v. State of California, et al.
as 24-2755
Plaintiff:
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, NOT DEAD YET, INSTITUTE FOR PATIENTS RIGHTS and others
Defendant:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, ROBERT BONTA and others
Other:
COMPASSION & CHOICES ACTION NETWORK, LAMBERT BASSLER, JUDITH COBURN and others
United Spinal Association, et al. v. State of California, et al.
as 24-2751
Plaintiff:
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, NOT DEAD YET, INSTITUTE FOR PATIENTS RIGHTS and others
Defendant:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor, ROBERT BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General and others
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Drake Real Estate Group, et al.
as 24-2752
Plaintiff:
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation
Defendant:
DRAKE REAL ESTATE GROUP, a California Corporation and CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DRAKE, an individual
Chavez v. The Arts District Does
as 24-2739
Plaintiff:
JU AN CHAVEZ
Defendant:
THE ARTS DISTRICT DOES
Armour, et al. v. Fidelity Select Technology Portfolio, et al.
as 24-2726
Plaintiff:
OLIVIA ARMOUR and CHANEL E. ARMOUR
Defendant:
FIDELITY SELECT TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO, FIDELITY CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES FUND, FIDELITY NEW MILLENIUM FUND and others
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.
