Cases 1 - 10 of 15
NIEVES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv20969
Plaintiff:
GEORGE A NIEVES and GEORGE ANGEL NIEVES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Harris v. Hixon et al
as 1:2020cv00147
Plaintiff:
George Angel Harris
Defendant:
Investigator Joseph Bultman and Investigator Jon Hixon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas Gooch, et al v. Jonathan Shirley, et al
as 13-15709
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THOMAS L. GOOCH and SUSAN J. GOOCH, as Next Friends of J.W.C. and J.P.G., Minor Children of Yvonne Hollis Gooch, Deceased, and as Co-Administrators of the the Estate of Yvonne Hollis Gooch
Defendant - Appellant:
JONATHAN SHIRLEY, JEREMY WOODY, SCOTT BLACKMAN and others
Gooch et al v. Millsap et al
as 4:2012cv00274
Plaintiff:
Thomas L. Gooch and Susan J. Gooch
Defendant:
Clark Millsap, The City of Cartersville , Brian Earick and others
Meulener v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
as 1:2012cv23436
Plaintiff:
George Angel Meulener
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Angel v. Grays Harbor County
as 3:2011cv00350
Petitioner:
Randall George Angel
Respondent:
Grays Harbor County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Randall Angel v. Gregory Smith, et al
as 11-15435
Petitioner - Appellant:
RANDALL GEORGE ANGEL
Respondent - Appellee:
GREGORY SMITH and NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Randall Angel v. Gregory Smith
as 11-70508
Petitioner:
RANDALL GEORGE ANGEL
Respondent:
GREGORY SMITH, Warden
Randall Angel v. Nevada Attorney General, et al
as 10-15824
Petitioner - Appellant:
RANDALL GEORGE ANGEL
Respondent - Appellee:
NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL and GREGORY SMITH
Randall Angel v. Gregory Smith, et al
as 10-15366
Petitioner - Appellant:
RANDALL GEORGE ANGEL
Respondent - Appellee:
GREGORY SMITH and NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
