Cases 1 - 4 of 4
James Johnson v. District of Columbia Criminal, et al
as 08-7077
Plaintiff - Appellant:
James F. Johnson
Defendant - Appellee:
District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act, Rufus G. King, III, District of Columbia Superior Court, Brendan Wells, Deputy Chief, Investigation Division, DC Public Defender Services and others
JOHNSON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT et al
as 1:2008cv01181
Plaintiff:
JAMES F. JOHNSON
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, RUFUS G. KING, III, BRENDAN WELLS and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Thanh Hoai, et al v. Superior Court for DC, et al
as 08-7067
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Thanh Vong Hoai, John David Hemenway and David Hemenway
Defendant - Appellee:
Superior Court for the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Panel of Judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in their official capacity as setters of case management policy in their decisions en banc and as three judges and others
Roth, Pamela, et al v. King, Rufus, et al
as 05-7060
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Pamela H. Roth, David J. Sitomer, David Jay Ontell, On behalf of themselves and all other attorneys similarly situated and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Rufus G. King, III, as Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Lee F. Satterfield, As Chief Judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Anita Josey-Herring, As Deputy Chief Judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and others
Defendant - Terminated Party:
Ronald Sullivan, as Director of the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia
Defendant - Appellee:
Herb Robinson, as Director of the Office of Administration for the Criminal Justice Act and Does, 1-100
Appellee - Appellee:
Avis E. Buchanan, as Director of the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia
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.
