Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Pierre Investments, Inc. v. Mockensturm, LTD et al.
as 3:2024cv01046
Defendant:
Mark Mockensturm, Momentum Financial Group, LLC, Redel Napper, III and others
Plaintiff:
Pierre Investments, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-3471
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00014
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Napper et al v. Goodlett et al
as 3:2022cv00533
Plaintiff:
Chelsey Napper and Cody Etherton
Defendant:
Kelly Hanna Goodlett and Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 nr Notice of Removal
Napper et al v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv02734
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc
Plaintiff:
Rod Napper and Joshua Napper
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Napper et al v. Jaynes
as 3:2021cv00320
Plaintiff:
Cody Etherton and Chelsey Napper
Defendant:
Detective Joshua Jaynes, Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government, Detective Wes Barton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Napper et al v. Hankison et al
as 3:2020cv00764
Plaintiff:
Chelsey Napper and Cody Etherton
Defendant:
LT. Shawn Hoover, Detective Jonathan Mattingly, LT. Jerry Huckleberry and others
Interested Party:
Brandon Jerrard Lawrence
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Jessy Napper v. USA
as 19-5166
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner / Appellant:
JESSY NAPPER
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv01465
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Napper v. McDonald et al
as 2:2016cv00620
Plaintiff:
Steven Napper
Defendant:
Robert A McDonald and Department of Veterans Affairs
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
