Cases 1 - 10 of 137
USA v. Troy Williams, Sr.
as 24-10953
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
TROY WILLIAMS, SR.
Haynes, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
as 23-3327
Plaintiff:
CHERYL COTTERILL
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Defendant:
MATHEW MASON, HUGH HALL, GREGORY HICKS and others
Not Yet Classified:
GREGORY MELVIN HAYNES, ATTORNEY, counsel for plaintiff
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv24672
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
WILLIAMS v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv06687
Plaintiff:
TROY WILLIAMS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Gregory Haynes, et al v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
as 23-15162
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GREGORY MELVIN HAYNES
Plaintiff:
CHERYL JOY COTTERILL
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MATHEW MASON, HUGH HALL and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00223
Counter Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Counter Claimant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
US v. Rodney Williams
as 22-7069
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
RODNEY TROY WILLIAMS
Williams v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv00158
Plaintiff:
Troy Williams
Defendant:
United States Postal Service and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv01697
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Morton v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00091
Plaintiff:
Michael Morton, Lisa Morton, Jeremy Smith and others
Defendant:
D.R. Horton, Inc., D.R. Horton, Inc.-Birmingham, Bethel Engineering and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
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.
