Cases 31 - 40 of 436
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00988
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00971
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Blanchard v. U T Health et al
as 6:2023cv00367
Plaintiff:
Christian Blanchard
Defendant:
U T Health, Haylee Velez and Nolan Gerety
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv02595
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00463
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Contreras Chacon et al v. Mayorkas et al
as 1:2023cv00671
Plaintiff:
Keylin Contreras Chacon, Jose Eduardo Cortez Maya, Isla Karen Garcia Carbajal and others
Defendant:
Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, Director Ur Jaddou and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00429
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Nolan v. Director-TCCO
as 5:2023cv00116
Petitioner:
Gary Monroe Nolan
Respondent:
Director-TCCO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nolan v. Peralta et al
as 5:2023cv00115
Plaintiff:
Gary Monroe Nolan
Defendant:
Lisa Peralta, C. Rangel and James Winkler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00415
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
