Cases 11 - 20 of 25
Bramlett v. Valenza et al (INMATE 2)
as 1:2019cv00187
Defendant:
Donald Valenza, Officer Caine and Commander Brazier
Plaintiff:
William Dale Bramlett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bramlett v. Dunn et al
as 5:2017cv01371
Plaintiff:
William Dale Bramlett
Defendant:
Jefferson S Dunn and Christopher Gordy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 9:2016cv81274
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
William Holley v. Secretary, Department of Corre, et al
as 15-15599
Petitioner - Appellant:
WILLIAM DALE HOLLEY
Respondent - Appellee:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and JULIE L. JONES
Sherrill v. City of Harlem Police Dept. et al
as 1:2015cv00149
Plaintiff:
William Dale Sherrill, Sr.
Defendant:
City of Harlem Police Dept., Rick Baxter and Gary Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sherrill v. City of Harlem Police Dept. et al
as 1:2015cv02667
Plaintiff:
William Dale Sherrill, Sr.
Defendant:
City of Harlem Police Dept., Rick Baxter and Gary Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
William Elliott v. Richard Wilcox, et al
as 15-10815
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM DALE ELLIOTT
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD B. WILCOX, individually, BENJAMIN ALLEN, individually, ERMON L. BENTLEY, individually and others
HOLLEY v. CREWS
as 3:2014cv00500
Petitioner:
WILLIAM DALE HOLLEY
Respondent:
MICHAEL D CREWS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Elliott v. Officer Richard B. Wilcox et al
as 3:2013cv00580
Plaintiff:
William Dale Elliott
Defendant:
Officer Richard B. Wilcox, Lieutenant Benjamin Allen, Officer Ermon L. Bentley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NADOLNY ET AL
as 3:2013cv00083
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
WILLIAM DALE NADOLNY, HEIDI NADOLNY and HANCOCK BANK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345 Foreclosure
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.
