Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Langston v. Gensinger et al
as 1:2018cv00766
Plaintiff:
Thomas Eugene Langston
Defendant:
Christopher J. Gensinger, Gregory L. Holloway, David Zook and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Langston v. Necolettos et al
as 3:2017cv00674
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Langston, Jr.
Defendant:
N. Necolettos, Brooke Pettit and T. R. Ramsey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Langston v. USA
as 2:2016cv00312
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Anthony D. Langston
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Thorne v. Bowen et al
as 1:2016cv00722
Plaintiff:
Tashawn Thorne
Defendant:
Ms. Bowen, Ms. L. Smith, Mrs. Sgt. Tisdale and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Caiola v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv02628
Plaintiff:
Michael Caiola , George Buccigrosssi , William Langston and others
Defendant:
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. , Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC , Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
v. Langston et al
as 1:2013cv01499
Defendant:
Thomas E. Langston, Greensville County and Patricia L. Harrington
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Langston v. Unknown
as 1:2013cv00780
Petitioner:
Thomas E. Langston
Respondent:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davenport et al v. City of Richmond, Virginia
as 3:2012cv00710
Plaintiff:
Donald Davenport , Montague Agee , Michael Alston and others
Defendant:
City of Richmond, Virginia
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Langston v. Warden of Keen Mountain Corr. Center
as 1:2012cv00597
Petitioner:
Thomas E. Langston
Respondent:
Warden of Keen Mountain Corr. Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hargrove v. City of Suffolk et al
as 2:2012cv00220
Plaintiff:
Jacqueline W. Hargrove
Defendant:
City of Suffolk , Thomas E. Bennett , Officer Langston and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
