Cases 11 - 20 of 20
JONES v. CRANE et al
as 1:2020cv02779
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
ROBERT CRANE, ANTHONY LAWRENCE, MADISON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. ALSIP et al
as 1:2017cv00257
Defendant:
DUANE ALSIP, DANKIN, DENNIS DAVIS and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JONES v. ZETECKY, ET AL
as 1:2016cv03347
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
BRUCE LEMMON, LT. K. SAMONE, VINCENT STANLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JONES v. ZATECKY
as 1:2016cv01393
Petitioner:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Respondent:
ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JONES v. ZATECKY et al
as 1:2016mc00014
Respondent:
ALSIP, CONLON, DAVIS and others
Petitioner:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2014cv00271
Plaintiff:
David R Jones
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Miscellaneous_party:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Sheneman v. Jones et al
as 3:2014cv01611
Plaintiff:
Jeremie Sheneman
Defendant:
David P Jones and Newby Lewis Kaminski Jones LLP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sheneman v. Jones et al
as 3:2013cv01155
Plaintiff:
Michael Sheneman
Defendant:
David P Jones and Newby Lawis Kaminski Jones LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice
Jones et al v. Foxhollow Technologies Inc
as 2:2008cv00363
Plaintiff:
David B Jones, David B Jones, David B Jones and others
Defendant:
Foxhollow Technologies Inc and Foxhollow Technologies Inc
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Jones v. Bates et al
as 3:2008cv00545
Plaintiff:
David Michael Jones
Defendant:
Bates, Howard Morton, Commissioner and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
