Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00070
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
A NOBLE PRIVATE LENDER v. COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al
as 4:2023cv00511
Plaintiff:
A NOBLE PRIVATE LENDER
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT (CI) SPECIAL AGENT(S)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
STONER v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al
as 1:2023cv00236
Plaintiff:
GEORGE BENJAMIN STONER
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and GARDY LAROCHELLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
EDWARDS v. COMMISSIONER FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 5:2023cv00051
Plaintiff:
LEAURENZA EDWARDS
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
COHEN v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al
as 1:2018cv00087
Plaintiff:
CHARLES CAMERON COHEN
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES and JILL ALLEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
COHEN v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 4:2018cv00006
Plaintiff:
CHARLES CAMERON COHEN
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
DAWKINS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 4:2012cv00480
Plaintiff:
ELKINO DENARDO DAWKINS
Defendant:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SANMANN v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
as 4:2010cv00086
Plaintiff:
CHARLES C SANMANN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HOWELL v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF AMERICA
as 4:2007cv00173
Plaintiff:
GRACE PAMELA HOWELL
Defendant:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
