Cases 1 - 10 of 148
Weih Chang v. USA, et al
as 24-5005
Plaintiff:
Weih Steve Chang
Defendant:
United States of America, Christopher A. Wray, Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity, Matthew G. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division and "China Initiative Working Group", U.S. Department of Justice, in his official capacity and others
SEYEDSHARIFI v. BLINKEN et al
as 1:2023cv03426
Plaintiff:
SEYEDEH ZAHRA SEYEDSHARIFI
Defendant:
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, RENA BITTER, MARTINA STRONG and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
DOE v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
as 1:2023cv03360
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE
Defendant:
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Jane Doe, et al v. DC, et al
as 23-7135
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jane Doe, by and through her next friend, Julie Doe and Julie Doe, mother and next friend of Jane Doe
Defendant / Appellee:
District of Columbia and Aqueelha James, Individually and as an agent of District of Columbia
DOE v. BURNS et al
as 1:2023cv02937
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE
Defendant:
WILLIAM J. BURNS, DOUG VAN ZANDT, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Right to Privacy Act
R.A. et al v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
as 1:2023cv02606
Plaintiff:
R.A., H.A., L.A. and others
Defendant:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
UNITED STATES v. DOE
as 1:2023cv01962
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES
Defendant:
JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Jane Doe v. DOJ, et al
as 23-5127
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jane Doe
Defendant / Appellee:
United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marne Mitskog v. DOJ, et al
as 23-5121
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Marne K. Mitskog
Defendant / Appellee:
United States Department of Justice, Jennie L. Kneedler, Stephen J. Buckingham and others
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.
