Cases 11 - 20 of 365
Hicks v. Garramone et al
as 6:2023cv01332
Plaintiff:
Tahjer Hicks
Defendant:
Grant Garramone, Todd Carville and Scott D. McNamara
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hicks v. McDonald et al
as 9:2023cv01307
Plaintiff:
Tahjer Hicks
Defendant:
Johnathan McDonald, Tyler Pelton and James Paternoster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Deus et al v. Hicks et al
as 1:2023cv07821
Plaintiff:
Rubenz Deus, Alex Boulet, Richard Stewart and others
Defendant:
Shaniece Hicks, Philip Ditto, Brandon Patane and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hicks v. Chavez et al
as 7:2023cv08088
Plaintiff:
Darnell R. Hicks
Defendant:
Det. Chavez and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hicks v. United States of America
as 1:2023cv06848
Petitioner:
Willie Lamont Hicks
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Hicks v. Walker et al
as 9:2023cv00853
Plaintiff:
Antwan Hicks
Defendant:
Sgt. L. Walker, II, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hicks et al
as 1:2023cv06065
Plaintiff:
Raven Hicks and S. H.
Defendant:
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Compaines, Inc. and Walgreens Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 pl Diversity-Product Liability
Hicks v. Exactech, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv04954
Plaintiff:
Richard Hicks, Sr.
Defendant:
Exactech, Inc., Exactech US, Inc., TPG Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Chapman v. Karp
as 23-923
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Pamela Chapman
Defendant / Appellee:
Jonathon Karp, Nancy Graham, Hope van Beuren and others
Hicks v. Kings County Supreme Court
as 1:2023cv03704
Plaintiff:
Lateef Hicks
Defendant:
Kings County Supreme Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
