Cases 11 - 20 of 287
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00534
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Simpson v. USA
as 2:2023cv00045
Petitioner:
Craig Wayne Simpson
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
German v. United States of America
as 5:2023hc02150
Petitioner:
Craig German
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2023cv01041
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Icker v. Nwude et al
as 5:2023ct03134
Plaintiff:
Mark Eric Icker
Defendant:
Dr. Michael Nwude, Alyssa Dowrich, Keri Tost and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00246
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Cunningham v. Headstart Warranty Group, LLC et al
as 3:2023cv00239
Plaintiff:
Craig Cunningham
Defendant:
Headstart Warranty Group, LLC, Vehicle Service Department, Sing for Service, LLC doing business as MEPCO and others
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Cunningham v. Affordable Auto Protection, LLC et al
as 3:2023cv00238
Plaintiff:
Craig Cunningham
Defendant:
Affordable Auto Protection, LLC, Autoguard Advantage Corporation, Dimension Service Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
SMITH v. USA
as 1:2023cv00310
Petitioner:
JABRELL CRAIG SMITH
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Wiley v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 7:2023cv00817
Plaintiff:
Craig J. Wiley
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
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.
