Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Baylor v. Tomasino
as 6:2022cv01356
Plaintiff:
Christopher Gary Baylor
Defendant:
John A. Tomasino
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
LOCKE v. CANADY et al
as 4:2022cv00116
Plaintiff:
Wendell Locke and WENDELL TERRY LOCKE
Defendant:
CHARLES CANADY, RICKY POLSTON, JORGE LABARGA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
STATE OF FLORIDA et al v. TOMASINO et al
as 4:2022cv00113
Plaintiff:
STATE OF FLORIDA and STEPHEN P WALLACE
Defendant:
JOHN A TOMASINO, COLE SCOTT AND KISSANE PA, CARLOS H GAMBOA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Clervrain et al v. Rushing et al
as 2:2022cv00044
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain and Medgine Sarah Jean
Defendant:
Karen E. Rushing, Todd Newton, Jeffrey R. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Garcia v. State of Florida et al
as 8:2021cv02024
Plaintiff:
Richard Salino Garcia
Defendant:
State of Florida, W. Ingersoll, John A. Tomasino and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CHESTNUT v. CANADY et al
as 4:2019cv00271
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT
Defendant:
JOHN TOMASINO, CLERK FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, CHARLES CANADY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MARTS v. TOMASINO
as 4:2018cv00467
Defendant:
JOHN A TOMASINO
Plaintiff:
SIDNEY MARTS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Frederick v. The State of Florida Judges et al
as 6:2017cv00202
Plaintiff:
John Henry Frederick
Defendant:
The State of Florida Judges and John A. Tomasino
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Blough v. Nazaretian et al
as 8:2016cv02587
Defendant:
Nazaretian, Nick Nazaretian, Tracy Sheehan and others
Plaintiff:
Blough and Melvin E. Blough
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ramos v. Tomasino et al
as 9:2016cv80681
Plaintiff:
Anthony E. Ramos
Defendant:
John R. Tomasino, Kevin Tynan, Richard Liss and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0001
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.
