Cases 21 - 30 of 144
Phillip Neal v. Warden, USP Lee
as 22-6777
Petitioner / Appellant:
PHILLIP LENARD NEAL
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN, USP LEE
US v. Edward Huffman
as 22-4336
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
EDWARD NEAL HUFFMAN
Dai'Shawn Neal v. Simpson (Woman Sgt)
as 22-6533
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAI'SHAWN NEAL
Defendant / Appellee:
SIMPSON (WOMAN SGT), Sergeant and COWTHRAN, Sergeant
Dai'Shawn Neal v. Sgt. Golen
as 22-6532
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAI'SHAWN NEAL
Defendant / Appellee:
SGT. GOLEN, Sergeant
Roshune Carelock v. Jeff Johnson
as 22-1352
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROSHUNE LEMARR CARELOCK
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFF JOHNSON, LYNETTE PATTON, WILLIAM BARNES and others
Defendant:
TRACY BLACK, NATALIE GAMBLE, MR. CHARLES and others
US v. Kenneth Neal
as 22-6299
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
KENNETH HOWARD NEAL
Madison Cawthorn v. Barbara Lynn Amalfi
as 22-1251
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MADISON CAWTHORN
Appellant:
BARBARA LYNN AMALFI, LAUREL ASHTON, NATALIE BARNES and others
Defendant:
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, STELLA ANDERSON, in her official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, JEFF CARMON, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections and others
Amicus Curiae:
PROFESSOR DEREK T. MULLER, CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER and NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Denard Neal v. J. Streeval
as 22-6220
Petitioner / Appellant:
DENARD DARNELL NEAL
Respondent / Appellee:
J. C. STREEVAL, Warden, U.S.P. Lee, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, District of Arizona-Phoenix, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Eastern District of California and others
US v. Kevin Smith
as 22-4125
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
KEVIN NEAL SMITH
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.
