Cases 31 - 40 of 101
Green v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2018cv00417
Plaintiff:
Rufus Maurice Green
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Totress v. Agnew et al
as 2:2017cv04681
Petitioner:
Tommy Maurice Totress
Respondent:
Carla Hacker Agnew and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. Tempe, City of
as 4:2017cv00582
Plaintiff:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Defendant:
Tempe, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Arizona, State of et al
as 2:2017cv04299
Petitioner:
Maurice Gregory Parker
Respondent:
Arizona, State of and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. United States of America et al
as 3:2017cv08218
Plaintiff:
Berdie Johnson
Defendant:
United States of America, Moaz Waleed Albulfaraj, James Maurice Langevin and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Johnson v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
as 4:2017cv00508
Plaintiff:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Defendant:
Arizona Department of Corrections, Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Ryan et al
as 2:2017cv03680
Petitioner:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. Ryan et al
as 2:2017cv03575
Petitioner:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Morris v. Shartle et al
as 4:2017cv00269
Petitioner:
Maurice Morris
Respondent:
JT Shartle and United States Penitentiary, Tucson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Johnson v. Ryan et al
as 2:2017cv00609
Petitioner:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
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.
