Cases 21 - 30 of 35
Nino-Romero v. Superintendent
as 3:2014cv02037
Petitioner:
Gerardo Nino-Romero
Respondent:
Superintendent
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SONNIER v. MAGIC CIRCLE CORPORATION et al
as 1:2014mc00092
Defendant:
BEMIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, KELCH CORPORATION and others
Interested Party:
CARMEL CLAY SCHOOL CORPORATION and KINSEY WALLACE
Plaintiff:
MARY LORENA SONNIER
Romero et al v. Brown et al
as 2:2014cv00325
Plaintiff:
Veronica Romero and Mayra Yvette Rivera
Defendant:
Michael A. Brown , William C. VanNess, II and Gregory F Zoeller
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00306
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00076
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Romero v. Refinery Bar and Grill Inc The
as 2:2013cv00426
Plaintiff:
Mark Romero
Defendant:
Refinery Bar and Grill Inc The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00138
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv01780
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
ROMERO-BENUMEA v. LOCKHARTT
as 2:2010cv00276
Respondent:
CHARLES LOCKHARTT
Petitioner:
REYMUNDO ROMERO-BENUMEA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BURDSALL v. ZHANG YI et al
as 1:2010cv01179
Plaintiff:
BRIAN B. BURDSALL
Defendant:
LG EXPRESS, INC., RODOLFO LARA & SON TRUCKING, INC., GEORGE V. ROMERO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
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.
