Cases 1 - 10 of 45
Todd R.G. Hill et al v. The Board of Directors, Officers and Agents and Individuals of the Peoples College of Law et al
as 2:2023cv01298
Defendant:
Hector Candelario Pena Ramirez, Jessica Viramontes, The Board of Directors, Officers and Agents and Individuals of the Peoples College of Law and others
Plaintiff:
Todd R. G. Hill
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
PURDON, II v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv20828
Plaintiff:
JAMES HERMAN PURDON, II
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
United States v. James Pegues
as 21-1434
Defendant / Appellant:
James Herman Pegues
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Henderson et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation, incorrectly designated as Doe 2 et al
as 3:2020cv06960
Defendant:
Grocery Outlet, Inc., Safeway, Inc., Sanofi US Services Inc., incorrectly designated as Doe 5 and others
Plaintiff:
Lucinda Monger, Lonnie Payne, Julie Bier and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Escowitz v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
as 1:2018cv11713
Plaintiff:
Steven Gardener, Dawn-Marie McComb-Giuffre, Greg Gerkens and others
Defendant:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605
(HC) Hill v. Clark
as 2:2018cv03168
Petitioner:
James Herman Hill, Sr.
Respondent:
Ken Clark
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pegues v. Kallis
as 1:2018cv01064
Petitioner:
James Herman Pegues
Respondent:
Kallis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Pegues v. Acting Warden - FCI Pekin
as 1:2017cv01409
Petitioner:
James Herman Pegues
Respondent:
Acting Warden - FCI Pekin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
In re: James Castle, Jr.
as 16-5677
Movant:
In re: JAMES HERMAN CASTLE, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HERMAN v. DUCHMAN et al
as 2:2016cv00769
Plaintiff:
JAMES HERMAN
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHER DUCHMAN, DUSTIN DATILLO and KING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
