Cases 11 - 20 of 42
BOKF, N.A. v. Bama Oaks Retirement, LLC et al
as 1:2021cv00028
Defendant:
Bama Oaks Retirement, LLC, Medical Clinic Board of the City of Mobile (second) and Saint Simons Heath Care, LLC
Plaintiff:
BOKF, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BOKF, N.A v. Kingery
as 3:2020cv00245
Plaintiff:
BOKF, N.A
Defendant:
Daniel Kingery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2019cv04037
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
Guilherme Casalicchio v. BOKF, N.A.
as 19-20277
Plaintiff / Appellee:
GUILHERME CASALICCHIO
Defendant / Appellant:
BOKF, N.A., doing business as Bank of Texas
Guilherme Casalicchio v. BOKF, N.A., et al
as 19-20246
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GUILHERME CASALICCHIO
Defendant / Appellee:
BOKF, N.A., doing business as Bank of Texas and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, doing business as Freddie Mac
BOKF, N.A. v. Condon et al
as 1:2019cv01044
Defendant:
Sunflower Bank, N.A. and Kelly Condon
Plaintiff:
BOKF, N.A.
BOKF, N.A. v. RC Operator, LLC et al
as 4:2018cv00556
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
Joseph Schwartz and RC Operator, LLC
Plaintiff:
BOKF, N.A.
Defendant:
Nashville Realty, LLC and Crestview Care and Rehabilitation Center, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Dixon v. BOKF, N.A.
as 2:2018cv02171
Defendant:
BOKF, N.A. and BOKF, N.A. doing business as Home Direct Mortgage
Plaintiff:
Michael Dixon
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938
Elliott v. BOKF, N.A. et al
as 1:2018cv01542
Plaintiff:
Wendy Elliott
Defendant:
BOKF, N.A., Marrien Neilson and BOKF, N.A. doing business as Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Casalicchio v. BOKF, N.A. d/b/a Bank of Texas et al
as 4:2018cv00160
Plaintiff:
Guilherme Casalicchio
Defendant:
BOKF, N.A. d/b/a Bank of Texas and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation d/b/a Freddie Mac
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
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.
