Cases 21 - 30 of 82
AYERS v. BROWN et al
as 1:2020cv00504
Defendant:
DENNIS G. BROWN and MIKE P. MARSHALL
Plaintiff:
TERRY ALLEN AYERS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RICHARDSON v. BROYHILL et al
as 1:2020cv00424
Respondent:
TIMOTHY P. BROYHILL, ALISON LESTER and DAVID L. HALL
Petitioner:
BARRY RICHARDSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TYLER v. WINSTON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2020cv00149
Defendant:
OFFICER A. M. COBB, OFFICER C.J. REYNOLDS, OFFICER N.A. TESH and others
Plaintiff:
XAVAR TYLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NEAL v. KANEKO et al
as 1:2020cv00029
Defendant:
CARLIETHA R. GLOVER, A. MOSQUEDA, J. FIGUEROA and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER NEAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TYLER v. WINSTON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2019cv00711
Defendant:
A. B. CONRAD, G. J. MORALES, CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM and others
Plaintiff:
XAVAR TYLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TYLER v. WINSON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2019cv00401
Defendant:
A. B. CONRAD, C. J. REYNOLDS, WINSON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Plaintiff:
XAVAR TYLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCCLARY v. POOLE et al
as 1:2019cv00160
Plaintiff:
RONALD MCCLARY
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT POOLE, ASST. SUPT. D. LOCKLEAR and ASST. SUPT. P. LOCKLEAR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
INGRAM v. FOLMAR et al
as 1:2019cv00124
Defendant:
DAVID P. FOLMAR, JR., THE BAR ASSOCIATION and ANNA MILLS WAGONER
Plaintiff:
RICKY MCKINLEY INGRAM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MCALLISTER v. WINSTON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2019cv00013
Defendant:
SGT D. T. LENTZ, CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, T. N. BRANCH and others
Plaintiff:
ANTON THURMAN MCALLISTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
INGRAM v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2018cv00915
Defendant:
DAVID P. FOLMAR, JR., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ANNA MILLS WAGONER
Plaintiff:
RICKY MCKINLEY INGRAM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
