Cases 41 - 50 of 99
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv00666
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Salomon v. Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, LLC et al
as 4:2015cv00151
Defendant:
Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, LLC, Outdoor Channel Holdings Inc and Pacific Northern Capital, LLC
Plaintiff:
Nic Salomon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jose Arreola-Amaya v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 15-40116
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSE SALOMON ARREOLA-AMAYA
Respondent - Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Jose Arreola v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-20766
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSE SALOMON ARREOLA
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00362
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
Esparza et al v. Tastee Kreme #2, Inc.
as 4:2014cv01293
Plaintiff:
Marcos Daniel Esparza and Salomon Cortez
Defendant:
Tastee Kreme #2, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Arreola v. Stephens
as 4:2013cv03403
Petitioner:
Jose Salomon Arreola
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Licona v. J. E. Don Pico's Inc. et al
as 4:2013cv02304
Defendant:
J. E. Don Pico's Inc. and Javier Enriquez
Plaintiff:
Salomon Licona
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Debra Bacon
as 13-20390
Movant - Appellee:
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney, Incorporated
Respondent - Appellant:
DEBRA M BACON
Arreola-Amaya v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 9:2013cv00213
Petitioner:
Jose Salomon Arreola-Amaya
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons and Eric Holder
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
