Cases 51 - 60 of 292
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv02489
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2014cv04104
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv02371
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv07737
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Elizabeth Nesbitt, et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al
as 14-36049
Defendant / Appellant:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THOMAS BOSTICK, Lieutenant General, Commanding General and Chief Engineers, ANDREW D. KELLY, Lieutenant Colonel, Walla Walla District Comander and District Engineer and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
ELIZABETH E. NESBITT, FKA Elizabeth Morris and ALAN C. BAKER
Amicus Curiae:
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC. and CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION
Carrier-Tal v. McHugh
as 4:2014cv00162
Plaintiff:
Donna Carrier-Tal
Defendant:
John McHugh
Cause Of Action: 10 U.S.C. § 1408
Carrier-Tal v. McHugh
as 2:2014cv00626
Plaintiff:
Donna Carrier-Tal
Defendant:
John McHugh
Cause Of Action: 10 U.S.C. § 1408
Dawn Moore-Ahmed v. John McHugh
as 14-41352
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAWN MOORE-AHMED
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army
MANNING v. MCHUGH
as 1:2014cv01995
Plaintiff:
MARTIN L. MANNING
Defendant:
JOHN MCHUGH
Cause Of Action: 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Armed Forces: Action to Correct Records
Gibbons
as 3:2014cv00424
Plaintiff:
John W. Gibbons
Defendant:
Honorable Chuck Hagel and Honorable John McHugh
Notice Only Party:
Magdalena Jara
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims 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.
