Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Nealy v. Shinn, et al.
as 23-4080
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES E. NEALY
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION, AND REENTRY, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, R CARR, Deputy Warden at Eyman Complex, SMU 1 Unit, S BRENNAN, Captain/Disciplinary Hearing Officer at SMU 1 and others
United States of America v. Walker et al
as 1:2023cv00002
Defendant:
John D. Walker, Jon Walker, Hansen Helicopters, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Richard Warren v. Attorney General for the State, et al
as 20-35865
Defendant / Appellee:
KIRT, Officer (D-Unit), Monroe Correctional Complex - Twin Rivers Unit, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, JEFFERY E. FLICK, CUS (D-Unit), Monroe Correctional Complex - Twin Rivers Unit and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD H. WARREN
Rodney D. Walker v. Warren L. Montgomery
as 8:2017cv01766
Respondent:
Warren L. Montgomery
Petitioner:
Rodney D Walker
Gotshalk v. Fortress Financial Group Ltd. et al
as 3:2011mc80231
Plaintiff:
Leonard Gotshalk
Defendant:
Fortress Financial Group Ltd., Gregory D. Walker and Lance R. Dalton
Gotshalk v. Fortress Financial Group Ltd. et al
as 3:2011mc80230
Plaintiff:
Leonard Gotshalk
Defendant:
Fortress Financial Group Ltd., Gregory D. Walker and Lance R. Dalton
Calvin Walker v. The State of California
as 11-72170
Petitioner:
CALVIN D. WALKER
Respondent:
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2010cv05892
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Mediator:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Dana Smith v. United States District Court
as 10-71912
:
In re: DANA LYDELL SMITH
Petitioner:
DANA LYDELL SMITH
Respondent:
USDC, BOISE
Real Party In Interest:
NICOLE CANNON, STATE OF IDAHO, BARRY WOOD and others
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.
