Cases 31 - 39 of 39
Allen v. Quarterman
as 08-20839
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES ALLEN
Respondent - Appellee:
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Beery v. Quarterman
as 08-10442
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES ALLEN BEERY
Respondent - Appellee:
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Chatman v. The City of Dallas et al
as 3:2008cv00767
Plaintiff:
Charles Allen Chatman and Charles Allen Chatman
Defendant:
The City of Dallas and Donald Ortega
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Allen et al v. Walker et al
as 2:2007cv09067
Plaintiff:
Annie Allen, Annie Allen, Charles Allen and others
Defendant:
Thomas B. Walker, Thomas B. Walker, Thomas B. Walker and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Hall v. Quarterman
as 4:2007cv02532
Petitioner:
Charles Allen Hall
Respondent:
Nathaniel Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Beery v. Quarterman
as 2:2007cv00100
Petitioner:
Charles Allen Beery
Respondent:
Nathaniel Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Allen v. Quarterman et al
as 9:2007cv00108
Plaintiff:
Charles Allen Allen, Sr
Defendant:
Nathaniel Quarterman, David Sweetin, F Reescano and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Herron v. 3M
as 1:2005cv00360
Defendant:
3M, Congoleum Corporation, D.B. Riley, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Emma Herron, Carl Abbott, Larry Donnell Abbott and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Asbestos Litigation
Herron v. 3M
as 1:2005cv00175
Defendant:
3M, Congoleum Corporation, D.B. Riley, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Emma Herron, Carl Abbott, Larry Donnell Abbott and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Asbestos Litigation
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.
