Cases 1 - 10 of 91
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03778
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02398
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12188 Americans With Disabilities Act
JAMES-IRVIN v. DAVIS et al
as 1:2023cv01961
Plaintiff:
KEITA M JAMES-IRVIN and KEITA M. JAMES-IRVIN
Defendant:
1017 Records, STACY ABRAMS, ASCAP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
SENTER et al v. GARLAND et al
as 1:2023cv02365
Plaintiff:
CLIFFORD SENTER, THOMAS BROWN, JESSE ANDRE and others
Defendant:
MERRICK GARLAND and COLLETTE PETERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
RISENHOOVER v. SHUI-BIAN et al
as 1:2023cv01341
Plaintiff:
PAUL MAAS RISENHOOVER
Defendant:
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, STEPHEN YOUNG, CLIFFORD HART and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
FLORES et al v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN et al
as 1:2022cv01512
Plaintiff:
RUBEN V. FLORES, DELIA D. FLORES, JOSHUA D. FLORES and others
Defendant:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN and SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02451
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Yi Tai Shao v. John Roberts, et al
as 21-5210
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Yi Tai Shao
Defendant / Appellee:
John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice and others
TUCKER MEUSE v. WHYTE et al
as 1:2021cv02871
Plaintiff:
AMANDA D. TUCKER MEUSE
Defendant:
CLIFFORD WHYTE and OFFICE OF THE USTP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00556
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
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.
