Cases 21 - 30 of 59
Khan v. Macomb, County of et al
as 2:2014cv13886
Plaintiff:
Asif Ahmad Khan
Defendant:
Macomb, County of, Center for Forensic Psychiatry and Beztak Properties
Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC v. Khan et al
as 2:2014cv12150
Plaintiff:
Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC
Defendant:
Arif Ali Khan and Anne K. Khan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Khan v. USA
as 2:2014cv11919
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Rehan Khan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
United States of America v. SEVENTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE DOLLARS AND TWENTY ONE CENTS IN U.S. CURRENCY ($17,381.21) FROM BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNT #XXXXXX2422 et al
as 5:2014cv11857
Defendant:
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE DOLLARS AND TWENTY ONE CENTS IN U.S. CURRENCY ($17,381.21) FROM BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNT #XXXXXX2422 , ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWO DOLLARS AND TWENTY THREE CENTS IN U.S. CURRENCY ($124,202.23) FROM BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNT #XXXXXX9233 , ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE DOLLARS AND THIRTY EIGHT CENTS IN U.S. CURRENCY ($1,679.38) FROM BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNT #XXXXXX7003 and others
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Claimant:
Walayat A. Khan
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2014cv10841
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
United States of America v. Khan
as 2:2014mc50149
Petitioner:
United States of America
Respondent:
Nasir Khan
United States of America v. Khan
as 2:2014mc50148
Petitioner:
United States of America
Respondent:
Nasir Khan
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv10301
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Great Lakes Transportation Holding L.L.C. v. Metro DTW Luxury Cab et al
as 2:2013cv15191
Plaintiff:
Great Lakes Transportation Holding L.L.C.
Defendant:
Metro DTW Luxury Cab and Noor Khan
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
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.
