US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
Cases 11 - 20 of 14,432
Williams v. Tik-Tok, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00130
Plaintiff:
Wendy M. Williams
Defendant:
Tik-Tok, Inc., Zhang Yiming and TIK TOK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Conner v. USA
as 1:2024cv00131
Petitioner:
Daniel Dewayne Conner
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
State Of Alabama et al v. Casey
as 1:2024cv00128
Plaintiff:
State Of Alabama and Alabama Department of Corrections
Defendant:
Kiley Casey
Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. AM/NS Calvert LLC
as 1:2024cv00126
Plaintiff:
Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC
Defendant:
AM/NS Calvert LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00123
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
State of Alabama et al v. Nelson
as 1:2024cv00127
Plaintiff:
STATE OF ALABAMA and ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Defendant:
Otis Nelson
Centauri Specialty Insurance Company et al v. Hill Robinson Insurance Agency, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00120
Plaintiff:
Centauri Specialty Insurance Company and Centauri Specialty Managers, Inc.
Defendant:
Hill Robinson Insurance Agency, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
Greene v. Pipes et al
as 1:2024cv00122
Plaintiff:
Raymond Shane Greene
Defendant:
Wesley S. Pipes, Mary B. Windom, Mark S. Tunstall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Perez v. USA
as 1:2024cv00121
Petitioner:
Yuri Maikel Hernandez Perez
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
v. Houchens Food Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00118
Not Yet Classified:
Houchens Food Group, Inc., Food Giant Supermarkets, Inc. and william e white
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 in Personal Injury
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.
