Cases 1 - 10 of 209
Aguilar v. County of Pima, et al.
as 24-2440
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL AGUILAR
Defendant:
COUNTY OF PIMA, CHRIS NANOS, STEPHEN PERKO, per Answer at Doc. 39 and others
Hood v. Tucson Police Department et al
as 4:2024cv00108
Plaintiff:
Gloria Marie Hood
Defendant:
Tucson Police Department, Nick Laughin, Katherine Hoffman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McLaughlin v. Nanos et al
as 4:2024cv00120
Plaintiff:
Ashley McLaughlin
Defendant:
Chris Nanos and Unknown Party
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jane Doe v. Nanos et al
as 4:2024cv00072
Defendant:
Unknown Party and Chris Nanos
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. Nano Hearing Tech Opco, LLC
as 3:2024cv00221
Plaintiff:
Stephanie Brown
Defendant:
Nano Hearing Tech Opco, LLC doing business as Nano Hearing Aids
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Obregon v. Napier, et al.
as 24-350
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARIO ARMANDO OBREGON
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK NAPIER, LAURA CONOVER, CHRIS NANOS and others
James v. Nanos et al
as 4:2024cv00030
Petitioner:
John Edwards James, III
Respondent:
Christopher Nanos and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Maldonado v. Pima, County of et al
as 4:2023cv00521
Plaintiff:
Kathleen Maldonado
Defendant:
Pima, County of, Chris Nanos, Aimee Conway and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nano-X Imaging Ltd. et al
as 1:2023cv08611
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Nano-X Imaging Ltd. and Ran Poliakine
CPAVC, Inc. v. Sancus-Trinity Nano Holdings, LLC
as 1:2023cv07742
Plaintiff:
CPAVC, Inc. and CPAV, INC.
Defendant:
SANCUS-TRINITY NANO HOLDINGS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Breach of Contract
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.
