Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Singh, et al. v. Garland
as 24-912
Petitioner:
LOVEJEET SINGH, HARPREET KAUR and SIMRAN KAUR
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00645
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv08828
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01582
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1255 Adjustment of Status of Nonimmigrant to Permanent Resident
Pink Floyd (1987) Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
as 1:2023cv14532
Plaintiff:
Pink Floyd (1987) Limited
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Gary Palmer, Gaurav Jha and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04442
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv01750
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv03035
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv05633
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1255 Adjustment of Status of Nonimmigrant to Permanent Resident
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv00676
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0555 b
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.
