Cases 31 - 40 of 264
ADAMS v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al
as 1:2020cv00478
Defendant:
GINA HASPEL, ALLISON FONG and UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Plaintiff:
DALE B. ADAMS and DALE BRENT ADAMS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
ADAMS v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al
as 1:2020cv00377
Defendant:
GINA HASPEL, ALLISON FONG and UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Plaintiff:
DALE B. ADAMS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Charles vonRosenberg v. Mark Lawrence
as 20-1061
Defendant / Appellant:
HOLY APOSTLES, BARNWELL, THE RIGHT REVEREND MARK J. LAWRENCE, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNETTSVILLE, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Defendant:
THE VESTRIES AND CHURCHWARDENS OF THE PARISH OF ST. ANDREWS, CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW, THE VESTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF PRINCE GEORGE WINYAH and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
ADAMS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al
as 1:2020cv00043
Plaintiff:
DALE B. ADAMS
Defendant:
JOHN DOE #1, JAMES N. MATTIS, RICHARD V. SPENCER and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
GILLMORE v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2019cv05571
Plaintiff:
MARSHALL GILLMORE
Defendant:
MARIROSA LAMAS, B. ADAMS, M. QUINN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles vonRosenberg v. Church of the Cross, Inc.
as 19-2163
Defendant / Appellant:
CHRIST CHURCH, FLORENCE, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNETTSVILLE, INC., THE VESTRY AND WARDENS OF ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, SUMMERVILLE and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Defendant:
CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW, THE CORPORATION CURRENTLY CALLING ITSELF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE TRUSTEES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and others
Not Yet Classified:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Charles vonRosenberg v. Mark Lawrence
as 19-2112
Defendant:
TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PINOPOLIS, BERKELEY COUNTY STRAWBERRY CHAPEL, ST. ANDREW'S MISSION and others
Defendant / Appellant:
THE RIGHT REVEREND MARK J. LAWRENCE, THE CORPORATION CURRENTLY CALLING ITSELF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and THE TRUSTEES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Plaintiff:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Not Yet Classified:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Wilborn v. Criminal Justice Center et al
as 2:2019cv02630
Defendant:
MPD Homicide Bureau, B. Adams, B. Byrd and others
Plaintiff:
Larry Lashaida Wilborn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Adams v. State of Nebraska et al
as 4:2019cv03083
Defendant:
State of Nebraska, City of Lincoln, City of Lincoln City Attorney's and others
Plaintiff:
Gregory B. Adams, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dan Bunkering America Inc. v. Melinda B. Adams M/V, et al
as 2:2019cv11892
Defendant:
Epic Companies, LLC, Sea Support Ventures LLC, Melinda B. Adams M/V and others
Plaintiff:
Dan Bunkering America Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333
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.
