Cases 1 - 10 of 1,572
Turner III v. John Doe
as 24-1242
Plaintiff:
JAMES R. TURNER, III
Defendant:
EDWARD RAPP and JOHN DOE
Anderson et al v. City of New York
as 1:2024cv03473
Plaintiff:
Francesca Anderson, Sabretha Ervin Turner, Sabrina Morell and others
Defendant:
City of New York
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 020
Nastasi & Associates, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P.
as 24-545
Plaintiff:
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Defendant:
BLOOMBERG, L.P., TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, EUROTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. and others
Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 6:2024cv06147
Plaintiff:
Alicia Marie Turner
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Kerhart v. The Turner Corporation
as 1:2024cv01573
Plaintiff:
HUNTER KERHART
Defendant:
The Turner Corporation
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
Antar v. Torres Shlatz et al
as 3:2024cv00269
Plaintiff:
Theodora F. Antar
Defendant:
Jessica C Torres Shlatz, State of Connecticut, William T. Cremins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00291
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 6:2024cv06108
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Turner
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Motley v. Janae Rocquel Motley Estate
as 24-1
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JANAE ROCQUEL MOTLEY
Defendant / Appellee:
JANAE ROCQUEL MOTLEY ESTATE, beneficiary JANAE ROCQUEL MOTLEY, DYMARION RASHAD BROOKS ESTATE, beneficiary DYMARION RASHAD BROOKS, DERRION RASHAD BROOKS ESTATE, beneficiary DERRION RASHAD BROOKS and others
Turner III v. John Doe
as 1:2023cv09516
Plaintiff:
James R. Turner III
Defendant:
John Doe
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.
