Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Gibbons
as 3:2014cv00424
Plaintiff:
John W. Gibbons
Defendant:
Honorable Chuck Hagel and Honorable John McHugh
Notice Only Party:
Magdalena Jara
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Wieland v. Hagel
as 3:2014cv04039
Plaintiff:
Gary Alan Wieland
Defendant:
Chuck Hagel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2674
McKamey v. Hagel et al
as 6:2014cv00438
Defendant:
Kevin D. Beason, Bryan R. Ed and Chuck Hagel
Plaintiff:
Lee A. McKamey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex Discrimination
Johnson v. United States et al
as 3:2014cv00317
Plaintiff:
HARVEY JOHNSON, and STATE OF TEXAS by and through HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ASSISTIVE AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES and Harvey Johnson
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney and Magdalena Jara
Defendant:
UNITED STATES, by and through HONORABLE CHUCK HAGEL, Secretary of Defense, and HONORABLE JOHN McHUGH, Secretary of the Army
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 0107 Vending Facilities for Blind in Federal Buildings
Samuels et al v. United States Department of Defense et al
as 3:2014cv02948
Plaintiff:
Kaitlyn Samuels , Mark Samuels and Jennifer Samuels
Defendant:
United States Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency and Chuck Hagel
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv00645
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Wright v. Schenkler et al
as 5:2014cv00639
Defendant:
M. Briggs, Chuck Hagel, M. Riggins and others
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv00325
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv00001
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
