Cases 1 - 7 of 7
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. The Public Administrator of Bronx County et al.
as 1:2021cv06348
Plaintiff:
THE SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, an agency of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Defendant:
The Public Administrator of Bronx County, as Limited Administrator d.b.n. of the Estate of Mildred Smith, deceased, Wilma Evon Tyson aka Wilma Evon Smith, Delores Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345 fc
Evon Smith, et al v. Colonial Care Center, et al
as 21-55377
Defendant:
RONALD SMITH, Nominal Defendant, DOES, 1 through 25, inclusive and JOHN HOUSTON, Nominal Defendant
Plaintiff / Appellee:
EVON SMITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent Joan Rivers, JUNE SMITH-WIMES, KENNEDY SMITH and others
Defendant / Appellant:
COLONIAL CARE CENTER
Evon Smith et al v. Colonial Care Center, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv00494
Plaintiff:
Gary Smith, Maurice Jordan, Joan Rivers and others
Defendant:
Ronald Smith, John Houston, Colonial Care Center, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv04073
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
Smith v. Mullin et al
as 5:2010cv00263
Petitioner:
Mills Evon Smith
Respondent:
Mike Mullin and Drew Edmondson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harris v. Donald et al
as 1:2007cv00157
Plaintiff:
Vincent Edward Harris
Defendant:
L. Beard, Dr. Nichols, Dr. Ness and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harris v. Donald et al
as 5:2007cv00422
Plaintiff:
Vincent Edward Harris
Defendant:
James E. Donald, J. Stanley Bishop, L. Beard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
