Cases 11 - 20 of 20
James et al v. Harlingen Family Dentistry, Series, PLLC et al
as 7:2011cv00267
Plaintiff:
Haydn J. James , Mary L. James and Katrina S. James
Defendant:
Harlingen Family Dentistry, Series PLLC and Juan D. Villareal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Daniel David Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye et al
as 2:2011cv05560
Defendant:
Judge Percy Anderson, Marvin R Baxter, California Supreme Court and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel David Dydzak
Movant:
United States of America
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv03066
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ponzini et al v. Monroe County et al
as 3:2011cv00413
Plaintiff:
Peter Ponzini and Miryem Barbaros
Defendant:
Monroe County , Monroe County Correctional Facility , Donna M. Asure and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv05085
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 09-4492
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Hartshorn v. Veach et al
as 6:2009cv01010
Plaintiff:
S. James Hartshorn
Defendant:
Stanley Veach, Nicholas Bradford and Eniseli Maalaelu
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Owuo-Hagood v. Sullivan et al
as 1:2008cv03583
Plaintiff:
Takuma Owuo-Hagood
Defendant:
Robert H. Sullivan, S. James Tuggle and Risk Management
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2007cv00937
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)
James v. City of Springfield et al
as 3:2007cv30169
Plaintiff:
Donald B. James
Defendant:
City of Springfield, Hampden County, Robert S. James 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.
