Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Ed Michaels v. Science Source
as 2:2023cv08071
Plaintiff:
Ed Michaels
Defendant:
Science Source and Photo Researchers, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
Ed Michaels v. Fine Art America
as 2:2023cv08069
Plaintiff:
Ed Michaels
Defendant:
Fine Art America
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
Amy Lopez v. City of Orlando, et al
as 17-10277
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AMY LOPEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF ORLANDO, a municipal corporation, WILLIAM WEAVER, in his individual capacity, NAHOUM DANIEL, in his individual capacity and others
Thomas Bondurant, et al v. City of Battleground, et al
as 16-36085
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS BONDURANT and MICHELLE BONDURANT, husband and wife
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF BATTLEGROUND, BATTLEGROUND POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROY BUTLER, Officer and others
ROSS v. ADAMS et al
as 2:2016cv00297
Defendant:
NATHAN ADAMS, RICK GRAVES and ED MICHAELS
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY ROSS
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Ed Michaels v. Christopher Nohr et al
as 2:2015cv06353
Plaintiff:
Ed Michaels
Defendant:
Christopher Nohr, Missouri Molding and Glass, Inc., Barewalls, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
Lopez v. City of Orlando et al
as 6:2015cv00900
Plaintiff:
Amy Lopez
Defendant:
City of Orlando, William Weaver, Nahoum Daniel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
United States Securities and E v. Daspin
as 13-4622
Plaintiff - Appellee:
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant - Appellant:
Edward M. Daspin, AKA Edward Michael, AKA Ed Michael
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael" a/k/a Ed Michael"
as 1:2013mc00389
Plaintiff:
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Edward M Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael" a/k/a Ed Michael"
Cause Of Action: M 08-85 Motion to Compel
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.
