Cases 1 - 10 of 39
MURRAY v. DONJON MARINE, CO., INC. et al
as 2:2022cv06655
Plaintiff:
JAMES MURRAY
Defendant:
DONJON MARINE, CO., INC. and TUG MARY ALICE
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688 Jones Act
Murray v. Flexion Therapeutics, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv01590
Plaintiff:
James Murray
Defendant:
Flexion Therapeutics, Inc., Michael D. Clayman, Elizabeth Kwo and others
Murray et al v. Downs Racing, LP et al
as 3:2019cv00228
Defendant:
Mohegan Commercial Ventures, PA, LLC and Downs Racing, LP
Plaintiff:
James Murray and Nina Murray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
James Murray v. Jean Toal, et al
as 17-1453
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES MURRAY, a/k/a James Hines
Defendant - Appellee:
JEAN HOEFER TOAL, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, COSTA M. PLEICONES, Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, BARBARA B. SAUNDERS, Assistant Ethic Counsel, Virginia State Bar and others
James Murray v. Jean Toal, et al
as 16-1237
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES MURRAY
Defendant - Appellee:
JEAN HOEFER TOAL, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, COSTA M. PLEICONES, Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, BARBARA B. SAUNDERS, Assistant Ethic Counsel, Virginia State Bar and others
James Murray v. Warden Lewisburg USP
as 15-1593
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES MURRAY, a/k/a James Hines
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP
James Murray v. Warden Lewisburg USP
as 14-4456
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES MURRAY, AKA James Hines
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP
James Murray v. Warden Lewisburg USP, et al
as 14-4247
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES MURRAY
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
James Murray v. Warden Lewisburg USP, et al
as 14-4233
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES MURRAY
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSIONER
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.
