Cases 71 - 80 of 88
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv00546
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Fuentes v. Foster et al
as 2:2010cv00347
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Sheryl Foster, Howard Skolnik and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sung v. Foster et al
as 2:2008cv00917
Plaintiff:
Yun Kyeong Sung
Defendant:
Sheryl Foster and Howard Skolnik
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Klein v. Tocco et al
as 2:2008cv00890
Plaintiff:
Paul Scott Klein
Defendant:
Fred Tocco, Brian Williams, Tim Cristilli and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Goncharoff v. Foster et al
as 3:2008cv00327
Petitioner:
Victor Goncharoff
Respondent:
Sheryl Foster and Catherine Cortez Masto
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Grundy v. Skolnick et al
as 2:2007cv00694
Plaintiff:
Ricky Lee Grundy
Defendant:
Howard Skolnick, Greg Cox, Bruce Bannester and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Grutgen v. Cox et al
as 3:2007cv00545
Plaintiff:
Robert Grutgen
Defendant:
Greg Cox, Sheryl Foster, CSI James Harrison and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miller v. Foster
as 2:2007cv01734
Plaintiff:
Phyllis Jean Miller
Respondent:
Sheryl Foster
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Miller v. Foster et al
as 2:2007cv01699
Petitioner:
Phyllis Jean Miller
Respondent:
Sheryl Foster, State Of Nevada and Attorney General of the State of Nevada
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pinkston v. Foster et al
as 2:2007cv01305
Petitioner:
Barbara A Pinkston
Respondent:
Sheryl Foster and Attorney General of the State of Nevada
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
