Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Lockett v. The United States of America et al
as 5:2024cv00052
Petitioner:
Sicory Lockett
Respondent:
The United States of America, The Department of Defense and The Department of Veteran Affairs
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lockett et al v. Envoy Mortgage, Ltd et al
as 4:2021cv03533
Plaintiff:
Emmanuel M Lockett and Jasmine F Francis
Defendant:
Envoy Mortgage, Ltd, Trent Lawson and Jaclyn Chabala
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00095
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Lockett et al v. The Finish Line, Inc., et al
as 4:2019cv00750
Defendant:
Frisco Police Department, The Finish Line Inc., City of Frisco and others
Plaintiff:
Brandon Kibart and Rocelius Lockett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lockett et al v. The Finish Line Inc et al
as 3:2019cv02113
Defendant:
Frisco Police Department, The Finish Line Inc. and The Finish Line Inc
Plaintiff:
Brandon Kibart and Rocelius Lockett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2016cv01667
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Lockett v. North Texas Tollway Authority
as 3:2013cv00882
Plaintiff:
Larry Lockett
Defendant:
North Texas Tollway Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Coots v. City of Kemah, Texas et al
as 4:2010cv05157
Plaintiff:
Daniel Wade Coots
Defendant:
City of Kemah, Texas , T. Wayne Lockett and Richard Burgess
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Coots v. City of Kemah et al
as 3:2011cv00003
Plaintiff:
Daniel Wade Coots
Defendant:
City of Kemah , T. Wayne Lockett and Richard Burgess
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2010cv03919
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
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.
