Cases 1 - 10 of 69
Harper v. Georges, et al.
as 24-3514
Plaintiff:
PATRICK ROY HARPER
Defendant:
PETER GEORGES, individually and in his official capacity as California Department of Fish and Wildlife, LORI FRUGOLI, individually and in her official capacity as District Attorney County of Marin, MICHAEL WEAR, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy District Attorney County of Marin and others
Raby v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv10761
Plaintiff:
Gerald Raby
Defendant:
Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. f/k/a NewHold Investment Corp., Peter George, Mario Ramos and others
Petitioner:
Douglas Buchan, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and Robert Falk
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-6204
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Noe v. Ciolli
as 1:2024cv00121
Petitioner:
Peter George Noe
Respondent:
Ciolli
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Noe v. USA
as 0:2024cv00500
Petitioner:
Peter George Noe
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Noe v. Ciolli
as 23-1304
Petitioner / Appellant:
PETER GEORGE NOE
Respondent / Appellee:
A CIOLLI, (Warden)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00311
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Harper v. Georges et al
as 3:2023cv05426
Plaintiff:
Patrick Roy Harper
Defendant:
Peter Georges, Lori Frugoli, Michael Wear and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Noe v. Ciolli
as 1:2023cv01809
Plaintiff:
Peter George Noe
Respondent:
Ciolli
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Noe v. United States Government, et al
as 23-1025
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PETER GEORGE NOE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, BERKLEY, Dr., H. SCHOUWEILER and others
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.
