Cases 61 - 70 of 264
Harrell et al v. Tutt, Taylor & Rankin Real Estate LLC et al
as 1:2020cv01347
Plaintiff:
John E. Harrell and Dawn D. Harrell
Defendant:
Brendan Muha, Tutt, Taylor & Rankin Real Estate LLC and Tutt, Taylor & Rankin Real Estate LLC doing business as TTR Sotheby's International Realty
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rankin Bey v. Massenburg et al
as 5:2020ct03340
Plaintiff:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey
Defendant:
Shirley Bennett, Christopher Rolfe, Sgt. Derek Massenburg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rankin Bey v. Bennett
as 5:2020ct03317
Plaintiff:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey
Defendant:
Shirley Bennett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rankin Bey v. Pearson et al
as 5:2020ct03318
Plaintiff:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey
Defendant:
C/O Fitts and Sgt. Pearson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RANKIN v. SAUL
as 1:2020cv00848
Plaintiff:
TYRONE VITTIRIO RANKIN
Defendant:
ANDREW M. SAUL and ANDREW SAUL
Interested Party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Napoleon Rankin Bey v. Capt. Pittman
as 20-7372
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY
Defendant / Appellee:
CAPT. PITTMAN
Rankin Bey v. Pittman
as 5:2020ct03266
Plaintiff:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey
Defendant:
Capt. Pittman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jonathan Mayo v. Chris Walz
as 20-7229
Respondent / Appellee:
MARK RANKIN HERRING, Attorney General and CHRIS WALZ, Interim Superintendent
Petitioner / Appellant:
JONATHAN ONEIL MAYO
Napoleon Rankin Bey v. Ms. Hinshain
as 20-7058
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN DOE, Psychologist, Psychiatrist, N.C. Department of Public Safety, MS. FLEMANING, Medical Director and MS. HINSHAIN, Psychiatrist
Rankin Bey v. Warren Correctional Institution
as 5:2020ct03215
Plaintiff:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey
Defendant:
Warren Correctional Institution, Mrs. Vaughan, Mrs. Barne and others
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.
