Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Richard Polidi v. Elizabeth Mendel
as 23-2104
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD POLIDI
Defendant / Appellee:
ELIZABETH ULLMER MENDEL, in her official capacity as a former Associate Solicitor of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, JAMES PAYNE, in his official capacity as former Deputy General Counsel of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, MICHELLE K. LEE, in her official capacity as the former Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-1859
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-1820
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Corinthian Stack v. Brock & Scott, PLLC
as 22-1152
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CORINTHIAN STACK and LYNN K. STACK
Defendant / Appellee:
BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, CHAD WILSON BURGESS, individual, GREGORY T. WHITLEY, individual and others
Corinthian Stack v. Brock & Scott, PLLC
as 21-2403
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CORINTHIAN STACK and LYNN K. STACK
Defendant / Appellee:
BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, CHAD WILSON BURGESS, individual, GREGORY T. WHITLEY, individual and others
John Nelums v. Hutchens Law Firm
as 21-2217
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN C. NELUMS, DELMARSHI H. NELUMS and JOHN CALVIN NELUMS
Defendant / Appellee:
HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, LLP, JOHN BRIAN KELCHNER, an individual, LENDER PROCESS SERVICES, INC. and others
John Teets v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC
as 21-1834
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN N. TEETS and DEBRA TEETS
Defendant / Appellee:
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC, CABOT CSC LLC, f/k/a Cabot Safety Corporation, MOLDEX-METRIC, INC. and others
Defendant:
AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, GARRETT MINE SUPPLY, INC. and others
Edward Gelin v. Kyle Shuman
as 21-1498
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DEBORAH GELIN, as personal representatives of the Estate of Ashleigh Gelin, and for themselves and EDWARD GELIN
Defendant / Appellee:
DIANE BAHR, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland, KYLE SHUMAN, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland, JENNIFER SEVIER, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland and others
Defendant:
MICHELLE RAWLINS, individually and in her official capacity, CARL LUCKETT, individually and in his official capacity, JAY R. FISHER, Sheriff of Baltimore County, individually and in his representative capacity and others
Charles vonRosenberg v. Mark Lawrence
as 20-2295
Defendant / Appellant:
HOLY APOSTLES, BARNWELL, THE RIGHT REVEREND MARK J. LAWRENCE, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNETTSVILLE, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
THE RIGHT REVEREND CHARLES G VONROSENBERG, individually and in his capacity as Provisional Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA and THE RIGHT REVEREND GLADSTONE B. ADAMS, III, individually and in his capacity as the Provisional Bishop of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina
Defendant:
CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW, THE VESTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF PRINCE GEORGE WINYAH, CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, MYRTLE BEACH and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Bennie Griffin v. Henry McMaster
as 20-7010
Petitioner:
ALLEN SLAUGHTER, JEANNE VOLTZ-LOOMIS, JOHN DOES 1-10, on their own and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons and others
Respondent:
HENRY S. ELDRIDGE, in his official capacity as a member of the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles, LONNIE RANDOLPH, in his official capacity as a memeber of the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles, BRYAN STIRLING, in his official capacity as Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
BENNIE GRIFFIN
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.
