Cases 1 - 10 of 3,678
TAMARIS (GIBRALTAR) LIMITED v. AMPPRAGMATICPLAY.COM et al
as 1:2024cv00748
Plaintiff:
TAMARIS (GIBRALTAR) LIMITED
Defendant:
AMPPRAGMATICPLAY.COM, ASIA-PRAGMATICPLAY.COM, CHEATPRAGMATICPLAY.COM and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Preferred Professional Insurance Company v. Rushing & Guice, P.L.L.C. et al
as 1:2024cv00129
Plaintiff:
Preferred Professional Insurance Company
Defendant:
Rushing & Guice, P.L.L.C., William L. Guice, III and Maria Martinez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)
Damond v. City of Rayville
as 24-30289
Plaintiff:
Glenn Damond
Defendant:
City of Rayville, Gary Gilley, Individually & in his Official Capacity, Tyler Wade, in his Individual Capacity & Official Capacity and others
MCCRAE v. RUSH et al
as 1:2024cv00368
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL MCCRAE, III
Defendant:
TAMARA RUSH, WARDEN PARSON, JERNIGAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. Shafer et al
as 2:2024cv00151
Plaintiff:
Cory David Brown
Defendant:
Shafer, Christina Reagel, Devine and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Blackman v. Hill et al
as 2:2024cv01149
Plaintiff:
Tony Blackman
Defendant:
J. Hill, Jennifer Damies, S. D. Rutledge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Penick v. Rush et al
as 3:2024cv00308
Plaintiff:
Justin L Penick
Defendant:
Rush, English, Devine and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harris v. City National Bank et al
as 6:2024cv00513
Plaintiff:
Shai Harris and Jay Williams Living Trust Dated
Defendant:
City National Bank, Andrew Adrian Dioli, RushMyFile, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Rush v. Helfrich et al
as 1:2024cv02971
Plaintiff:
Dennis Rush
Defendant:
Bryan Helfrich, Brandon Walls, David Haag and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
