Cases 1 - 10 of 11
James Boykin v. K12, Inc.
as 21-2351
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES BOYKIN, lead plaintiff per order dated on, ADNAN SAEED and CHAN-HEE KOH
Defendant / Appellee:
K12, INC., NATHANIEL A. DAVIS and TIMOTHY MEDINA
US v. Nathaniel Davis
as 21-6028
Defendant / Appellant:
NATHANIEL FRANK DAVIS
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Baig v. K12 Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv01528
Plaintiff:
Jennifer Baig
Defendant:
Timothy Medina, K12 Inc. and Nathaniel A. Davis
Petitioner:
Richard Pohly and John Pohly
In Re: K12 Inc. Securities Litigation
as 1:2020cv01419
Defendant:
K12,Inc., Nathaniel A Davis and Timothy Medina
Plaintiff:
Yun Chau Lee, James Boykin, Adnan Saeed and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Jennifer Baig
Petitioner:
John Pohly and Richard Pohly
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 22 Securities Fraud
Davis v. Kim et al
as 8:2019cv03605
Defendant:
Adam C Kim, J and H Beverage Inc. d/b/a Largo Liquors, Jay Chang Kim and others
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel F Davis and Nathaniel F. Davis, II
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Davis v. Barnes Transportation Services Inc et al
as 3:2016cv03502
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel C Davis
Defendant:
Barnes Transportation Services Inc and Joseph Mitchell Thigpen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Davis v. USA
as 7:2016cv00228
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Frank Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Nathaniel Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 11-6504
Petitioner - Appellant:
NATHANIEL LEE DAVIS
Respondent - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Davis v. Commonwealth Of Virginia
as 7:2010cv00571
Respondent:
Commonwealth Of Virginia
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Lee Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Davis v. Commonwealth Of Virginia
as 7:2010cv00159
Respondent:
Commonwealth Of Virginia
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Lee Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
