Cases 1 - 10 of 41
SHAO v. HAYDEN
as 1:2024cv00360
Plaintiff:
DONGFANG SHAO
Defendant:
CARLA HAYDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
HAYDEN v. WORMUTH
as 1:2023cv02709
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW A HAYDEN and MATTHEW A. HAYDEN
Defendant:
CHRISTINE WORMUTH
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
CLARK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2022cv02874
Plaintiff:
JAMES HEDMAN CLARK
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GINA RAIMONDO, KATHIE VIDAL and others
MEDICAL IMAGING & TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE et al v. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS et al
as 1:2022cv00499
Plaintiff:
MEDICAL IMAGING & TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE and ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
Defendant:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS and CARLA HAYDEN
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
BROWN et al v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
as 1:2021cv01308
Plaintiff:
E. F., ROBERT A CHAPMAN, OREN D. GINGRICH and others
Defendant:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00576
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
ESTRADA et al v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AN FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN et al
as 1:2021cv00528
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL GALE ESTRADA and ESTRADAEY ELECTRIC, LLC
Defendant:
JEROME HAYDEN POWELL and FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AN FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv02413
Not Classified By Court:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv01935
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PERALES v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al
as 1:2019cv03315
Defendant:
DONALD ALWAY, JEREMY WILTZ, GREGORY D. COX and others
Plaintiff:
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
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.
