Cases 21 - 30 of 32
The Arc of California, et al v. Douglas, et al
as 2:2011cv02545
Plaintiff:
The Arc of California and United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Diego
Defendant:
Toby Douglas , California Department of Health Care Services , Terri Delgadillo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv00658
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Wade v. Hartley
as 1:2011cv00089
Petitioner:
Toby Wade
Respondent:
J. Hartley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bonine v. Fulton-El Camino Recreation & Parks District
as 2:2010cv01101
Plaintiff:
Toby Bonine
Defendant:
Fulton-El Camino Recreation & Parks District
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Wade v. Harley
as 1:2010cv00566
Petitioner:
Toby Wade
Respondent:
J. Harley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
California Association of Rural Health Clinics et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al
as 2:2010cv00759
Defendant:
David Maxwell-Jolly, Toby Douglas and California Department of Health Care Services
Plaintiff:
California Association of Rural Health Clinics and Avenal Community Health Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
California Association of Rural Health Clinics et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al
as 2:2010at00382
Defendant:
David Maxwell-Jolly, Toby Douglas and California Department of Health Care Services
Plaintiff:
California Association of Rural Health Clinics and Avenal Community Health Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Wade v. Hasley
as 1:2009cv01660
Plaintiff:
Toby Wade
Defendant:
J. Hasley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Evans v. Sisto
as 2:2008cv02859
Petitioner:
Toby Evans
Respondent:
D.K. Sisto
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Wade v. Harley
as 1:2008cv01417
Petitioner:
Toby Wade
Respondent:
J. Harley
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
