Cases 11 - 16 of 16
Ronnie Todd v. State of Arizona, et al
as 21-16330
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONNIE RAMAEL TODD, DBA Ramael Blackwell El, AKA Ramael Blackwell El Trust, DBA Ronnie Ramael Todd
Defendant / Appellee:
STATE OF ARIZONA, ESTATE OF RONNIE RAMAEL TODD, ESTATE OF RYAN RAMAEL TODD and others
Todd v. Arizona, State of
as 2:2021cv01144
Plaintiff:
Ronnie Ramael Todd also known as Ramael Blackwell El Trust doing business as Ronnie Ramael Todd doing business as Ramael Blackwell El and Ramael Blackwell El Trust
Defendant:
Arizona, State of, Estate of Ronnie Ramael Todd, Estate of Ryan Ramael Todd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Murray v. Tingling
as 18-1642
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Willie Murray, AKA Jeffery Lashley
Defendant - Appellee:
Milton Adair Tingling, Clerk of the Court Criminal Court of The City of New York
Sun v. New York State Attorney Genera
as 17-3697
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Xiu Jian Sun, Servant of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Spiritual Adam
Defendant - Appellee:
New York State Attorney General, Charles F. Sanders, (Wang Xing Ren), Michael Siudzinski, (Wang Xing Ren) & Office of the Attorney General of NY and others
Sun et al v. State of New York Office of the Attorney General et al
as 1:2017cv05916
Defendant:
109 Precinct and 2 Female Enforcement Police Officers from 109 Precinct, Alfonse D'Amato Federal Courthouse, Attorney Generals Office of Eric T. Schneiderman and others
Pharisee:
Akwei Oko Acquaye, Aprilanne Agostino, Thomas P. Aliotta and others
Wang Xing Ren:
Aron M. Bloom, Daniele Dezago, Sean P. Greene and others
Wand Xing Ren:
Robert L. Capers
Plaintiff:
Xiu Jian Sun
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Maxwell v. Vance et al
as 1:2017cv01644
Plaintiff:
Jerome Maxwell
Defendant:
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Marquez Brooks, Milton Adair Tingling and others
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.
