Cases 1 - 10 of 15
WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
as 1:2022cv00464
Petitioner:
MARY FREDA WILLIAMS
Respondent:
USA and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Lewis v. Williams et al
as 1:2017cv01652
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Lewis
Defendant:
James Carlyle Williams, Jr., David M. Pascoe, Jr., Diane Shafer Goodstein and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dillard v. Perry et al
as 5:2016ct03329
Plaintiff:
Thomas T. Dillard, Jr.
Defendant:
Frank Perry, W. David Guice, George Solomon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. State, The et al
as 1:2016cv03242
Plaintiff:
Terry D Davis, Jr
Defendant:
State, The, Alan Wilson, John W McIntost and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Owaiian M. Jones v. Anthony Wayne Bailey
as 15-7868
Plaintiff - Appellant:
OWAIIAN M. JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
ANTHONY WAYNE BAILEY, ARNETTA REED, S. E. JONES and others
Jones v. Bailey et al
as 1:2015cv01438
Plaintiff:
Owaiian M. Jones
Defendant:
Anthony Wayne Bailey, Arnetta Reed, S E Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAKER v. WILLIAMS
as 2:2013cv00058
Petitioner:
RALPH OWEN BAKER
Respondent:
MARY JO WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Bell v. Shearouse et al
as 2:2011cv00506
Plaintiff:
John X Bell
Defendant:
Daniel E Shearouse, Liz Godard, Mary S Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Timothy Charley v. Office of the Attorney General
as 10-6904
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TIMOTHY CHARLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General and MARY S. WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General
Charley v. Office of the Attorney General et al
as 6:2010cv01204
Plaintiff:
Timothy Charley
Defendant:
Office of the Attorney General, Henry McMaster and Mary S Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
