Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Meng et al v. Namnath
as 3:2019cv01337
Plaintiff:
Hesheng Meng and Changming Wu
Nominal Defendant:
GenericERA Inc.
Defendant:
James Namnath
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Menges v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
as 1:2017cv00210
Defendant:
Commissioner Social Security Administration
Plaintiff:
Diana S. Menges
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1383 Review of HHS Decision
Herrington-Rose et al v. Edmiston et al
as 3:2013cv02155
Defendant:
Cox, Joshua Edmiston, Lewis Menges and others
Plaintiff:
Richard Herrington-Rose and Sandy Rose
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Menges v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
as 3:2012cv02189
Defendant:
Commissioner Social Security Administration
Plaintiff:
Warren Dale Menges
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 g Review of Commissioner's Final Decision
Gurule et al v. Hanlin et al
as 6:2011cv01274
Defendant:
Dr. Terry C. Bancroft, C.F.M. Kitchen Manager Gisel Bitterman, Dr. Steven Blum and others
Plaintiff:
Billy D. Davis, Dennis R. Fain, Richard E. Gurule and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Haney v. Blumenauer et al
as 3:2011cv00989
Defendant:
Gregory E Abel, Wedge Abels, Sam Adams and others
Plaintiff:
Azonia Haney
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Webster v. Albrecht et al
as 3:2011cv01052
Defendant:
Cheryl A. Albrecht, Earl Blumenauer, Jeffrey S. Cogen and others
Plaintiff:
Brent Evan Webster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kelly v. Brown et al
as 3:2011cv00975
Defendant:
John V. Acosta, Sam Adams, Ann L. Aiken and others
503) 296-5762 (fax:
Roberta Kelly
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Kelly v. Eckert et al
as 3:2011cv00949
Defendant:
John V. Acosta, Sam Adams, Ann L. Aiken and others
503) 296-5762 (fax:
Roberta Kelly
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
