Cases 11 - 20 of 43
Kozitzki v Lumpkin
as 5:2021cv00384
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Petitioner:
Michael Adam Kozitzki
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Kozitzki v. Bexar County Adult Detention Center
as 5:2021cv00239
Defendant:
Unknown Defendants, Texas Board of Pardons & Parole General Counsel, STATE OF TEXAS and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Adam Kozitzki
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Michael Delapena
as 20-10467
Defendant / Appellant:
MICHAEL ADAM DELAPENA
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2019cv00529
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2019cv00530
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Delapena v. USA
as 4:2017cv00522
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Michael Adam Delapena
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Chaz Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dept, et al
as 17-10250
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHAZ Z. RODGERS, Individually
Defendant - Appellee:
LANCASTER POLICE & FIRE DEPARTMENT, METHODIST DALLAS HOSPITAL, JAMES SKACH, Officer and others
Adams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
as 4:2016cv01668
Plaintiff:
Michael Adams
Defendant:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132
Caraway et al v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv03763
Plaintiff:
Charles Fowler , Andrew Schaefer , Michael Adams and others
Defendant:
BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c. and others
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 2701
Abad et al v. Maxum Petroleum Operating Company et al
as 7:2016cv00001
Plaintiff:
Christopher L. Gabriel, Marlow Hilton, Alexander Abad and others
Defendant:
Maxum Petroleum Operating Company and Pilot Thomas Logistics, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
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.
