Cases 51 - 60 of 640
MARTIN v. EMMONS et al
as 7:2023cv00063
Plaintiff:
KENDRICK R MARTIN
Defendant:
Warden S EMMONS, C MIMS, R SHROPSHIRE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BEASLEY v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv10498
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL BEASLEY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SMITH v. BEASLEY
as 7:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
ROY MANDELL SMITH
Defendant:
Lt AARON KIRK, Supervisor KEVIN CONNOLLY, NED M MIKULA and others
Respondent:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BEASLEY v 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv10286
Plaintiff:
ROSCOE BEASLEY and 3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Beasley et al v. Tractor Supply Company et al
as 2:2023cv14131
Plaintiff:
Sandy Dale Beasley and Kandace Frances Howe-Beasley
Defendant:
Tractor Supply Company and Todd Eric Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal-Personal Injury
Rivers v. Beasley
as 1:2023cv01964
Petitioner:
Willie James Rivers
Respondent:
Warden Beasley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MCKISSIC v. BEASLEY
as 7:2023cv00052
Plaintiff:
CARLTON MCKISSIC
Defendant:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00455
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Miller v. Burton et al
as 7:2023cv00436
Plaintiff:
Tonya Armstead Miller
Defendant:
Gerald Burton, John Beasley, Elijah Rodriques and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Harpo et al v. Hunter et al
as 1:2023cv01454
Plaintiff:
Wihly Harpo, T. Mary Brown, Zeric Wideman and others
Defendant:
Robert W. Hunter, III, Carletta Sims-Brown, Vera L. Butler 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.
