Cases
Gregory Bartko v. Michael Goetz, et al
as 24-1084
Plaintiff: GREGORY BARTKO
Defendant: MICHAEL GOETZ, Administrator of the Attorney Grievance Commission, DINA P. DAJANI, Former Senior Counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission, MARK A. ARMITAGE, Executive Director of the Attorney Discipline Board and others
Bartko v. Goetz et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 4:2022cv12985
Plaintiff: Gregory Bartko and Gregory Bartko [E-Filer]
Defendant: Michael Goetz, Dina P. Dajani, Mark A. Armitage and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2019cv13794
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Nettles v. Michigan Supreme Court Clerk et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2017cv00004
Plaintiff: Beverley R. Nettles
Defendant: Michigan Supreme Court Clerk, Larry S. Royster, Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Arnold Dunchock v. Mark Armitage
as 14-1452
Plaintiff - Appellant: ARNOLD D. DUNCHOCK
Defendant - Appellee: MARK A. ARMITAGE
Dunchock v. Armitage
as 2:2013cv14701
Plaintiff: Arnold D. Dunchock
Defendant: Mark A. Armitage
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Arnold Dunchock v. Robert Young, Jr., et al
as 13-1319
Plaintiff - Appellant: ARNOLD D. DUNCHOCK
Defendant - Appellee: ROBERT P. YOUNG, JR., Chief Justice, individually, jointly and severally on behalf of Michigan Supreme Court, ROBERT L. AGACINSKI, as an employee of the Michigan's Attorney Grievance Commission, individually, jointly and severally and MARK A. ARMITAGE, as an employee of the Michigan's Attorney Discipline Board, individually, jointly and severally
Dunchock v. Young et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2012cv00195
Plaintiff: Arnold D. Dunchock
Defendant: Robert P. Young, Jr., Robert L. Agacinski and Mark A. Armitage
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.


Why Is My Information Online?