Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Foreman v. State of Alabama, The et al
as 2:2024cv00656
Petitioner:
Darryl C Foreman
Respondent:
State of Alabama, The, Jefferson County and Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Foreman v. Neely
as 7:2023cv00242
Petitioner:
Renata Rochelle Foreman
Respondent:
Kimberly Neely
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Foreman v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00188
Plaintiff:
Phillip Foreman
Defendant:
Copart of Connecticut, Inc. and USAA Insurance
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Foreman v. Neely et al
as 7:2023cv00160
Plaintiff:
Renata Foreman
Defendant:
Kimberly Neely, D Mosby, C Garcia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Foreman v. Gwathney et al
as 2:2021cv01353
Plaintiff:
Mack Auther Foreman, Jr
Defendant:
Leigh Gwathney, Dwayne Spurlock, Cliff Walker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Foreman v. Gwathney et al
as 2:2021cv01076
Plaintiff:
Mack Arthur Foreman, Jr and Mack Auther Foreman, Jr
Defendant:
Leigh Gwathney, Dwayne Spurlock and Cliff Walker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Foreman v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc
as 2:2015cv01613
Plaintiff:
Lura Foreman
Defendant:
Home Depot U.S.A. Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wilhite v. Franklin et al
as 5:2014cv01547
Plaintiff:
Joey Lee Wilhite
Defendant:
Anne Franklin, Mardis, S Hazen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Foreman v. Jones et al
as 2:2014cv00785
Petitioner:
Mack Auther Foreman, Jr
Respondent:
Kenneth Jones and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dudley v. City of Birmingham et al
as 2:2013cv00127
Plaintiff:
Linda Moss Dudley
Defendant:
City of Birmingham , William Bell , A. C. Roper and others
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.
