Cases 31 - 40 of 198
J&G Sales, Inc. v. Pike Electric, LLC
as 4:2022cv02247
Plaintiff:
J&G Sales, Inc.
Defendant:
Pike Electric, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract
Perrone v. Ladner et al
as 3:2022cv00390
Plaintiff:
Megan Perrone
Defendant:
Pike Electric, LLC and Brant Ladner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Spence et al v. Austin et al
as 4:2022cv00453
Plaintiff:
Bryan P Spence, Tyler W Stef, Ryan Corcoran and others
Defendant:
Lloyd J Austin, III, United States Department of Defense and Frank Kendall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Herrington v. Federal Insurance Company
as 1:2022cv00176
Plaintiff:
Stacey Pike Herrington
Defendant:
Federal Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract
Herrington v. Federal Insurance Company
as 1:2022cv00175
Plaintiff:
Stacey Pike Herrington
Defendant:
Federal Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Pierre v. Pike County, Mississippi
as 5:2022cv00028
Plaintiff:
Brian Keith Pierre
Defendant:
Pike County, Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Erwin v. USA
as 22-40184
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Bonnie Burnette Erwin
Defendant / Appellee:
United States of America, Michael Horowitz, Jeff Baney and others
DOH Oil Company et al v. Kahle et al
as 7:2022cv00058
Plaintiff:
DOH Oil Company and Craig A. Johnson
Defendant:
Aaron Kahle, Steve Kerrigan, Stephen Yerkovich and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Young v. Pike County, Mississippi
as 5:2021cv00106
Plaintiff:
Jesman Young
Defendant:
Pike County, Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pike v. United States of America
as 5:2021cv01226
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Fay Pike
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
