Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Gerow v. United States Department of Justice et al
as 2:2023cv01059
Plaintiff:
Eric Gerow
Defendant:
United States Department of Justice, Phoenix, City of, Phoenix Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Injunction
ROBERTSON, SR. v. RUBENS et al
as 3:2022cv00114
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE ROBERTSON, SR.
Defendant:
PAUL RUBENS and WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
BlueTarp Financial, Inc. v. Robertson Development, LLC et al
as 2:2019cv13006
Defendant:
Lawrence Q. Robertson, Robertson Development, LLC and Lawrence Robertson
Plaintiff:
BlueTarp Financial, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Ted Robertson v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 16-20478
Petitioner - Appellant:
TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Ted Robertson v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 16-20355
Petitioner - Appellant:
TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Robertson v. Stephens
as 4:2015cv03630
Petitioner:
Ted Lawrence Robertson
Respondent:
Williams Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ted Robertson v. William Stephens, Director
as 15-20292
Petitioner - Appellant:
TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Ted Robertson v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-20018
Petitioner - Appellant:
TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Robertson v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2013cv03175
Petitioner:
Ted Lawrence Robertson
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
