Cases 11 - 20 of 40
Izquirdo Martiato v. Barr et al
as 5:2019cv00101
Respondent:
Shawn Gills and W.B. Barr
Petitioner:
Pablo Yasel Izquirdo Martiato
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Ellis v. Hall et al
as 1:2019cv00690
Defendant:
Uknown Gills, Connie Pierce, John Doe and others
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Ellis
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gill v. Berryhill
as 1:2019cv00016
Defendant:
Nancy Berryhill
Plaintiff:
Kevin Fonda Gill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Broome & Brooks, PLLC v. Gill
as 3:2017cv00923
Plaintiff:
Broome & Brooks, PLLC
Defendant:
Dacia Alice Gill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Sullivan v. Huffman et al
as 1:2017cv00115
Plaintiff:
Daniel S. Sullivan
Defendant:
Brand Huffman, Courtney Gallaway and Gill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gill et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al
as 2:2017cv00064
Plaintiff:
Lynda F. Gill and Laurie Rood
Defendant:
Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. , Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv00654
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gill v. Mississippi Department of Human Services et al
as 1:2015cv00428
Plaintiff:
Marie Gill
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Human Services , Hancock County Department of Human Services , Tequila Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2015cv00192
Plaintiff:
Pamela R. Gill
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Robinson v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security et al
as 3:2015cv00165
Plaintiff:
Anthony Robinson
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Employment Security, Cindy Gill, Andrew Howorth and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
