Cases 1 - 10 of 62
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00160
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Sipe v. Summit Treestands, LLC
as 3:2023cv00052
Plaintiff:
Michael Sipe
Defendant:
Summit Treestands, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Dawkins v. Sipe
as 1:2022cv02141
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Dawkins
Defendant:
C. Sipe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Kilgore v. Sipe et al
as 1:2021cv00026
Defendant:
J. T. Sipe, Edwin C. Roessler, Jr. and C. Siler-Taylor
Plaintiff:
Cleveland Kilgore
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sipe v. A&S Transporting, LLC et al
as 3:2020cv00048
Defendant:
A&S Transporting, LLC and Eric Tepp
Plaintiff:
Norma Sipe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PCT, LTD et al v. Paris et al
as 3:2020cv00287
Defendant:
Marion E. Paris, Jr., Clay Parker Sipes, Annihilare Medical Systems, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation and PCT, LTD
3Rd Party Defendant:
Darryl Leslie Patterson
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Earl Johnson, Jr. v. John Steele
as 20-6683
Defendant / Appellee:
OFFICER JOHN SWEENEY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER II JOHN STEELE, SERGEANT TRAVIS CALDER and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EARL P. JOHNSON, JR.
Maxwell Sipes v. Warden Tyger River
as 20-6201
Petitioner / Appellant:
MAXWELL E. SIPES
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Fletcher v. Corcoran et al
as 8:2018cv03567
Defendant:
Dayena M. Corcoran, Warden Frank B. Bishop, Officer W. Logsdom and others
Plaintiff:
Warren T. Fletcher
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Sipes v. Warden of Tyger Correctional Institution
as 8:2018cv02842
Petitioner:
Maxwell E Sipes
Respondent:
South Carolina and Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
