US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Cases 41 - 50 of 26,447
Hoffman v. Kindrick et al
as 2:2024cv02873
Defendant:
Vern Kindrick and Dee King Trucking
Plaintiff:
Austin Hoffman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Stinson Sr. v. Fowlkes et al
as 2:2024cv02870
Defendant:
Joedae L. Jenkins, Patrick E. Stegall, LT. Randle and others
Plaintiff:
Mark T. Stinson Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Thomas v. Nickell et al
as 1:2024cv01236
Defendant:
Michael Allen and Jacob Nickell
Plaintiff:
Ashley Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02872
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02871
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Thomas v. United States of America
as 2:2024cv02881
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Dedrick Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. DONMARCOS, LLC et al
as 2:2024cv02867
Plaintiff:
FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION
Defendant:
DONMARCOS, LLC, DONALD HENSON and MARK PATTON
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
MELSON v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC
as 2:2024cv02866
Defendant:
UHS of Lakeside, LLC
Plaintiff:
CLYDE MELSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Mathis-Sanders v. Greyhound Lines Inc.
as 2:2024cv02868
Plaintiff:
Kimla Mathis-Sanders
Defendant:
Greyhound Lines Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2615 a Family Medical Leave Act
Williams v. Well Path
as 2:2024cv02874
Plaintiff:
Jarvius Williams
Defendant:
Well Path
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
