US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Cases 91 - 100 of 188,993
Cavazos v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. LB2176690141
as 7:2024cv00164
Plaintiff:
Eloy Cavazos
Defendant:
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. LB2176690141
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
MidFirst Bank v. Pena et al
as 1:2024cv00056
Plaintiff:
MidFirst Bank
Defendant:
Rory Pena and Mary Elisabeth Pena
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Kelly v. Burton et al
as 4:2024cv01480
Plaintiff:
Donavyn Kelly
Defendant:
Sedrick Burton and USA Truck, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Turner v. Blackwell
as 4:2024cv01498
Plaintiff:
Kenny Cruse Turner
Defendant:
Officer Blackwell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01501
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01495
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01479
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Webb v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01502
Petitioner:
Everette Dale Webb
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Davis et al
as 4:2024cv01499
Plaintiff:
Roy Wayne Jackson, Jr.
Defendant:
Lorie Davis, Bobby Lumpkin, Bryan Collier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lopez v. Strategy Professional Services, LLC et al
as 4:2024cv01496
Plaintiff:
Edwin Lopez
Defendant:
Strategy Professional Services, LLC and Mohammed Bennani
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.
