Cases 51 - 58 of 58
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv00755
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Viol. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
REEVES v. O'REGAN KEARY
as 1:2010cv01257
Plaintiff:
LEAVON Z. REEVES
Defendant:
ANN O. KEARY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KABIR et al v. CLINTON et al
as 1:2009cv00739
Plaintiff:
EMRANUR Z. KABIR and FARHANA TASNIM
Defendant:
HILLARY R. CLINTON, ROBERT DREESEN and ROBERT MUELLER, III
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
ROSEN v. CHASE BANK USA N.A.
as 1:2009cv00340
Plaintiff:
SOL Z. ROSEN
Defendant:
CHASE BANK USA N.A.
Cause Of Action: Diversity
ABBASS et al v. CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al
as 1:2009cv00229
Plaintiff:
LOKHA RIDA ABBASS, SHAKIR MOHAMAD, ABDUL-RHMAN MANSOUR MOHAMAD and others
Defendant:
CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC. and L-3 SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
as 1:2008cv00016
Plaintiff:
CHARLES T. PHILLIPS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBERTO GONZALES, TROY KING and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
IN RE: INPHONIC, INC., WIRELESS PHONE REBATE LITIGATION - MDL-1792
as 1:2006mc00507
Defendant:
ANDREW B. ZEINFELD, BRIAN T. WESTRICK, CONTINENTAL PROMOTION GROUP, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
EDWIN DAVIS, BARRY R. FRIEDRICH, RON VINCENT and others
In Re:
INPHONIC, INC., WIRELESS PHONE REBATE LITIGATION - MDL 1792
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
AL ODAH, et al v. USA, et al
as 1:2002cv00828
Plaintiff:
KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, OMAR RAJAB AMIN, MOHAMMAD R.M.R. AMEEN and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD and others
Petitioner:
ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY and USA TODAY
Amicus Curiae:
CHARLES B. GITTINGS, JR.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
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.
