Cases 1 - 10 of 1,739
United States of America v. Peeler (Adrian Peeler)
as 24-1240
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ADRIAN PEELER, RUSSELL PEELER, JR., SHAWN KENNEDY and others
Ruiz-Mora, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2951
Petitioner:
ADRIAN OMAR RUIZ-MORA and ANGELICA MARIA RODRIGUEZ-CARRILLO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.
as 24-2933
Plaintiff:
AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY and AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION
Defendant:
DAMIEN R. MEYER, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, AMY B. CHAN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, GALEN D. PATON, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and others
Intervenor:
VOTERS' RIGHT TO KNOW and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
McKinney v. County Of Dutchess
as 24-1195
Plaintiff:
STEPHANIE MCKINNEY
Defendant:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, Sheriff ADRIAN ANDERSON, in his personal and official capacity, STATE OF NEW YORK and others
Randles v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc., et al.
as 3:2024cv01043
Plaintiff:
Adrian Scott Randles
Defendant:
Nationstar Mortgage LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business as Mr Cooper and Mr Cooper Group Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Aguinaga-Ramos v. Garland
as 24-2645
Petitioner:
JUAN ADRIAN AGUINAGA-RAMOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Adrian Tay v. Upstart Network, Inc.
as 2:2024cv03372
Plaintiff:
Adrian Tay
Defendant:
Upstart Network, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
United States of America v. Bradshaw
as 24-1024
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ADRIAN BRADSHAW
US v. Adrian Gambrell-Booker
as 24-4207
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ADRIAN MARKEESE GAMBRELL-BOOKER, a/k/a AD
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.
