Cases 1 - 10 of 56
USA v. Jaques Randolph
as 23-10039
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JAQUES D. RANDOLPH
Stilp v. City of Pottsville et al
as 3:2022cv01266
Plaintiff:
Eugene Stilp
Defendant:
City of Pottsville and Jonathan D Randolph
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Riley v. United States Bankruptcy Court et al
as 3:2022cv00409
Plaintiff:
Charles Riley
Defendant:
United States Bankruptcy Court, Hon. David R. Duncan, Bruce M. Rose and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Randolph v. University of Kansas Medical Center et al
as 2:2020cv02600
Defendant:
Usman Latif, John M. Sojka and University of Kansas Medical Center
Plaintiff:
LaTreissa D. Randolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
RANDOLPH v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv93917
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL D RANDOLPH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MediGrow LLC v. Natalie M LaPrade Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission et al
as 1:2020cv00504
Defendant:
M.D. Elizabeth Q Hines, M.D. C Obi Onyewu, Saundra O Washington and others
Plaintiff:
MediGrow LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cr
Jose Medina v. Curtis D. Randolph et al
as 2:2019cv07201
Defendant:
Curtis D. Randolph and Does 1 thru 10, inclusive
Plaintiff:
Jose Medina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444
Jose Medina v. Curtis D. Randolph et al
as 2:2019cv05484
Defendant:
Curtis D. Randolph and Does 1 to 10, inclusive
Plaintiff:
Jose Medina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444
Walker (ID 75878) v. Cline et al
as 5:2019cv03066
Defendant:
D. Randolph, Sam Cline and (fnu) Davis
Plaintiff:
Daniel Eugene Walker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Peek v. Randolph
as 3:2018cv00780
Plaintiff:
David H. Peek
Defendant:
Peter D. Randolph
Counter_defendant:
Frisch Holdings, LLC and David H. Peek
Counter_claimant:
Peter D. Randolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
