Cases 1 - 10 of 10
R. Johnson v. U.S.M.C. Camp Lejeune
as 23-6251
Plaintiff / Appellant:
R. WAYNE JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
U.S.M.C. CAMP LEJEUNE and U.S.M.C. JOHN-JANE DOES 1-10
Jerry A. Hurst v. Guy Harbert
as 16-1242
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JERRY A. HURST
Defendant - Appellee:
GUY HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities, MAXWELL WIEGARD, in their individual and official capacities, MARTY HARBIN, in their individual and official capacities and others
Jerry A. Hurst v. Guy Harbert
as 15-2000
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JERRY A. HURST
Defendant - Appellee:
GUY HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities, MAXWELL WIEGARD, in their individual and official capacities, MARTY HARBIN, in their individual and official capacities and others
Jerry Hurst v. Guy Harbert
as 13-2524
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JERRY A. HURST
Defendant - Appellee:
GUY HARBERT, in his individual and official capacities, MAXWELL HUDDLESTON WIEGARD, in his individual and official capacities, MARTY A. HARBIN, in his individual and official capacities and others
Darryl McKenzie v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
as 11-1365
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DARRYL MCKENZIE, MORRIS LAWN AND LANDSCAPE, TIMOTHY ARD and others
Petitioner:
CHRISTY T. DALTON
Movant - Appellant:
WILLIAM HALL, DAISIAH WHACK, through her Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne, ROOSEVELT WALKER and others
Movant:
ROBERT M. BELL, ERWIN LEIZERMAN, MICHAEL J. LEIZERMAN and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10
Jessica Curtis v. Norfolk Southern Railway Compa
as 10-1829
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JESSICA CURTIS, TIMOTHY ARD, JAMES SPLAWN and others
Petitioner:
CHRISTY T. DALTON
Movant - Appellant:
DW, through her Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne; Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne, WILLIAM HALL, ROOSEVELT WALKER and others
Movant:
ROBERT M. BELL, ERWIN LEIZERMAN, MICHAEL J. LEIZERMAN and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10
Elizabeth Cutright v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
as 10-1559
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELIZABETH R. CUTRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiff:
TINA BEVINGTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JESSICA CURTIS, TIMOTHY ARD and others
Petitioner:
CHRISTY T. DALTON
Movant:
ROBERT M. BELL, ERWIN LEIZERMAN, MICHAEL J. LEIZERMAN and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10, Norfolk Southern Railway Crewmembers and Residents of South Carolina
Christy Dalton v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
as 09-2366
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHRISTY T. DALTON
Plaintiff:
ELIZABETH R. CUTRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, TINA BEVINGTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JESSICA CURTIS and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant - None:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10
Movant - None:
ROOSEVELT WALKER, DW, through her Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne; Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne, WILLIAM HALL and others
Christy Dalton v. Norfolk Southern Corporation
as 09-2367
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTY T. DALTON
Plaintiff:
ELIZABETH R. CUTRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JOHN C. BEVINGTON, JESSICA CURTIS and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION
Defendant - None:
JOHN DOES 1-10
Jane Doe v. South Carolina Department of S
as 08-2161
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JANE DOE, by and through her guardians Gregory and Michelle Johnson, GREGORY JOHNSON, MICHELLE JOHNSON and others
Defendant - Appellee:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SCDSS, DEBBY THOMPSON, ELIZABETH G. PATTERSON, Director and others
Defendant - None:
KAMERSON SETH COX, TITSA M. FLESCH, HEALTHY MINDS, LLC and others
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.
