Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Ismael Padilla v. U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas
as 24-6458
Plaintiff:
ISMAEL PADILLA
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CITY OF ANGLETON, TEXAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PAROLES and others
Edgar Padilla-Chavez v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1048
Petitioner:
EDGAR GERARDO PADILLA-CHAVEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Ervin Bellamy v. Kevin Guistwite
as 22-7128
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ERVIN BELLAMY
Defendant / Appellee:
KEVIN P. GUISTWITE, Executive Director, Child Support Administration, GLORIA BROWN, SAMANTHA PHILLIPS-CHESTER and others
Harold Padilla-Molina v. Merrick Garland
as 21-1323
Petitioner:
HAROLD JOSE PADILLA-MOLINA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Delmi Padilla-De Castro v. William Barr
as 19-1561
Petitioner:
DELMI PADILLA-DE CASTRO
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
Raul Padilla-Ruiz v. Communication Technologies
as 19-1156
Defendant / Appellee:
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Defendant:
RICHARD ROE, respective insurance company, JOHN CRAY, respective insurance company and JOHN DOE, respective insurance company
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP, Legal Society of Earnings, VIVIAN J. FRANCESCHINI-RODRIGUEZ and RAUL PADILLA-RUIZ
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-2033
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-1972
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Delmi Padilla-De Castro v. Jefferson Sessions III
as 17-1661
Petitioner:
DELMI PADILLA-DE CASTRO
Respondent:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
Angel Calderon Ruiz v. Jefferson Sessions, III
as 17-1603
Petitioner:
ANGEL ALEXANDER CALDERON RUIZ, JESSY JUDITH PADILLA REYES, F.A.C.P. and others
Respondent:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
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.
