Cases 1 - 9 of 9
DARDEN v. PEARSON et al
as 1:2023cv02185
Plaintiff:
TARIA DASHAWN DARDEN
Defendant:
LILLIAN GLADYS PEARSON and WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
EMRIT v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA DARDEN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS et al
as 1:2023cv01118
Plaintiff:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant:
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA DARDEN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ADAMS & GARTH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
COOMBS et al v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
as 1:2019cv03363
Plaintiff:
VERONICA DUSTIN, IBTISAM FARRAN, VICTORIA PITTS and others
Defendant:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A
WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2017cv02059
Petitioner:
FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and RICHARD M. DARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00103
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
DARDEN v. U. S. PAROLE COMMISSION
as 1:2013cv01380
Petitioner:
WILLIAM A. DARDEN
Respondent:
U. S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
LANQUEST CORPORATION v. MCMANUS & DARDEN, LLP
as 1:2011cv00722
Plaintiff:
LANQUEST CORPORATION
Defendant:
MCMANUS & DARDEN, LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JONES v. LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION et al
as 1:2009cv00616
Plaintiff:
DONALD G. JONES
Defendant:
LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION, MARK C. LANDRY and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
FTC v. LIBBEY INC, et al
as 1:2002cv00060
Plaintiff:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Defendant:
LIBBEY, INC. and NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC.
Petitioner:
ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION, INDIANA GLASS CO., ARC INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA and others
Intervenor:
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 53 b Federal Trade Commission Act
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.
