Cases 1 - 10 of 36
(PS)Casey v. Cotton et al
as 2:2026cv02697
Plaintiff:
Michael Patrick Casey
Defendant:
Joseph Cotton, Ken Nakamura and Donna Sue Casey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Casey v. Mayflower Transit, LLC
as 0:2026cv03484
Plaintiff:
Patrick Casey
Defendant:
Mayflower Transit, LLC
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 10101 ICC Termination Act of 1995
(HC) Casey v. Rowe et al
as 2:2026cv02411
Petitioner:
Michael Patrick Casey
Respondent:
Jamal Rowe, Chief Probation Officer and Sacramento County Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) Casey v. Rowe et al
as 2:2026cv02412
Petitioner:
Michael Patrick Casey
Respondent:
Jamal Rowe, Chief Probation Officer and Sacramento County Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anderson et al v. City Of Chicago et al
as 1:2025cv03362
Plaintiff:
Matthew Anderson, Morris Bishop, Theophilus Boykin and others
Defendant:
City Of Chicago, Paul Cogswell and Sanjeev Mikhail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Darrel Fisher v. Brian Casey
as 23-3636
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Darrel R. Fisher
Defendant / Appellee:
Brian Patrick Casey
Patrick Casey v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2023cv05426
Defendant:
3M Company, The, Du Pont De Nemours Inc, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Patrick Casey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Casey v. Chinook Therapeutics, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv05986
Plaintiff:
Patrick Casey
Defendant:
Chinook Therapeutics, Inc., Eric Dobmeier, Srinivas Akkaraju and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00856
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00156
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
