Cases 1 - 10 of 1,167
Bailey v. Paxton
as 6:2024cv00236
Plaintiff:
Markiesha (Mark) Bailey
Defendant:
Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Alford v. Paxton et al
as 4:2024cv01679
Plaintiff:
Travis Alford
Defendant:
Ken Paxton and Texas Board of Law Examiners
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Ayala v. NYC Human Resources Administration
as 24-1196
Plaintiff:
BENJAMIN AYALA
Defendant:
NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, JAMIE ESPARZA, EL PASO DISTRICT ATTORNEY and others
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. v. W. Kenneth Paxton et al
as 1:2024cv00472
Plaintiff:
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
Defendant:
W. Kenneth Paxton and Jane Nelson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Newberry v. Wilson et al
as 1:2024cv02639
Plaintiff:
Phillip D. Newberry
Defendant:
Alan Wilson and Kenneth Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
Paxton v. United States of America
as 7:2024cv00366
Plaintiff:
Sandra M. Paxton
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
Media Matters for America, et al v. Warren Paxton, Jr.
as 24-7059
Plaintiff:
Media Matters for America and Eric Hananoki
Defendant:
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas
Corona v. City of Rocklin et al
as 2:2024cv01178
Plaintiff:
Cameron Corona
Defendant:
City of Rocklin and Jeffrey Paxton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Williams v. Ritenour
as 24-50298
Plaintiff:
John Bernard Williams, III
Defendant:
John Joseph Ritenour, Jr. and Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas, Consumer Protection Division, Law Enforcement Division, and Civil Rights Division, Hate Crimes
Reid v. Garland et al
as 4:2024cv01417
Plaintiff:
Tyron Nathan Reid
Defendant:
Merrick B. Garland, Alamdar Hamdini, Steve Dettelbach and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
