Cases 1 - 10 of 100
ABRAHAM v. ROLAND et al
as 3:2026cv04711
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ABRAHAM
Defendant:
ROLAND, ZUCKER, MCWILLIAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ustian v. Zucker, et al.
as 26-4489
Plaintiff:
ERIC USTIAN
Defendant:
EVAN ZUCKER, an individual and POWDER BOWL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Colorado based Company
Curne v. The Orchard Enterprises NY, Inc. et al
as 1:2026cv05451
Plaintiff:
Jarrell D. Curne
Defendant:
The Orchard Enterprises NY, Inc., Spotify USA Inc., Tesla, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Zucker v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2026cv00709
Petitioner:
Jerry Zucker
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Zucker v. Director, TDCJ - CID
as 4:2026cv00651
Petitioner:
Jerry Zucker
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sajid Raza v. State of New Jersey, et al
as 26-2210
Plaintiff:
SAJID RAZA
Defendant:
COUNTY OF CAMDEN, TOWNSHIP OF GLOUCESTER, DAVID J. VANNONI, Police Officer and others
Zucker v. Director, TDCJ
as 6:2026cv00223
Petitioner:
Jerry Zucker
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv00541
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv00414
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
DeVivo et al v. DeVivo et al
as 8:2026cv00148
Defendant:
Richard Farrer, Lisa E. Stone, Simone Gustuphson and others
Plaintiff:
Lisa Annette DeVivo, Joseph M. DeVivo, Jr. and Christopher Joseph Caltabiano
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.
